Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL,

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

NAZEING WOOD OR PARK BILL [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time

PRIVATE BILLS

Standing Order 208, relating to Private Business suspended until the Summer Adjournment.

Ordered,
That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments be considered on the second Sitting of the House after the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.

Ordered,
That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office and Notice thereof given not later than the day before that on which the Amendments made by the House of Lords are proposed to be taken into consideration."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. Asterley Jones: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a

statement regarding the prospective supplies of paraffin, vaporising oil and gas and diesel oils during the coming winter.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): British Companies do not produce sufficient paraffin, vaporising oil, gas oil and diesel oil to meet their requirements and the balance is only obtainable by purchase from the U.S.A. Owing to the unexpectedly high increase in the consumption of this group of oils in the United States, forward availability is uncertain, but everything possible is being done to secure adequate supplies for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Asterley Jones: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication whether the supplies will be better or worse than they were last winter?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid I cannot say. It depends entirely on whether the imports are up to expectation.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to safeguard the interests of domestic users of paraffin in country districts where there is no gas or electricity?

Mr. Shinwell: Naturally, we are very much concerned about that type of consumer, but I must repeat that it depends on the availability of supplies from overseas.

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will allocate increased or normal supplies of kerosene, paraffin oil, to tenants sharing houses in the urban areas.

Mr. Shinwell: Tenants sharing houses are entitled to register for priority supplies under the Kerosene (Paraffin Oil) Priority Scheme if they are dependent solely on paraffin oil for heating, lighting or cooking. I am unable to authorise a general increase in deliveries of paraffin oil by the Petroleum Board to dealers in view of the supply position.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Domestic Supplies

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will issue instructions to his local officers to allow an additional


allocation of coal to the houses of farm-workers and others living in isolated places who have to rely entirely on solid fuel for cooking and drying clothes.

Mr. Shinwell: Additional coal allowances are already granted to consumers entirely dependent on solid fuel.

Mr. Hurd: Would the Minister make this arrangement more widely known, because the standard allowance of 34 cwt. for an isolated cottage is quite inadequate?

Mr. Shinwell: I agree. We have made this announcement as widely known as possible; instructions have been sent out to fuel overseers, and announcements have also appeared in the Press. While I agree that the amount is inadequate, we do arrange for additional supplies to be provided in all those cases where a consumer is entirely dependent on solid fuel.

Mr. Baldwin: Can the Minister say whether there is any definite standard laid down for the issue of this extra coal, so that all country dwellers may know for what they are entitled to ask?

Mr. Shinwell: There is a standard, but it is contingent upon the availability of supplies. For example, in the North the permitted ration may be increased, in certain cases, from 50 cwt. to 60 cwt., and in the South there would be a proportionate increase, but I repeat that it depends on whether the supplies are coming forward.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Do not these individual increases come out of the total allocation for the area, and do they not really mean that if one person has an increase someone else has to do with less?

Mr. Shinwell: Not necessarily, because the allocations are frequently revised in accordance with the needs of the area.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power approximately what is the proportion of the allocation of coal that has been delivered, or is likely to be delivered to customers in the London or Greater London areas before the autumn.

Mr. Shinwell: Deliveries are, of course, dependent on supplies, but I do not anticipate that the London average this summer

will be less than last summer, when an average of over II cwt. per premises was delivered.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that in some parts of London the proportion is very much lower than was anticipated, and that a great deal of the allocation has not yet been delivered?

Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised to hear that, because, according to the figures available in the Department, the amounts are in excess of last summer, although I am not pretending that they are as adequate as they should be.

Mr. Sorensen: What is the reason for the disproportionate distribution?

Mr. Shinwell: There may be some variations as regards deliveries to certain districts. I should be glad to be acquainted with any information which my hon. Friend has in his possession.

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the expected deficit on the coal target for the end of this year, it is anticipated that there will be a reduction in the domestic fuel allocation for the coming winter.

Mr. Shinwell: I see no reason at present for changing the domestic coal restrictions next winter, but I am keeping the level of supplies under close review.

Major Peter Roberts: Will the Minister give an assurance that if there is a deficit due to a reduction in home production, he will be able to get coal from abroad to make up the difference?

Mr. Shinwell: It is quite impossible to speak of restrictions in allocation until we see what the position is in September and October. At the present moment, I see no reason why we should not make available as much for this coming winter as was made available during last winter.

Imported Coal (Price)

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps will be taken in the interests of the consumer to keep the price of imported U.S. coal down to the present level of home-produced coal.

Mr. Shinwell: All imported coal will go into the pool for industrial and other


consumers, according to the general scheme of allocations. The selling price of imported coal to the U.K. consumer will be negotiated commercially by the National Coal Board and the receivers concerned, in the light of ruling U.K. prices.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is this coal which is being imported clean coal, or is it as dirty as British coal?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not prepared to concede that British coal is dirty. There is a great deal of it which is of good saleable quality. As regards United States coal, if it is of the variety sent to European countries, it may not be entirely up to our standards.

Major Roberts: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do everything he can to get from America, before next spring, up to 4 million tons of coal at the same price which other European countries are prepared to pay for a similar type of coal?

Mr. Shinwell: We have made our arrangements, through the United States authorities and the European Coal Organisation, for supplies to be made available. I am afraid that when the hon. and gallant Member speaks of 4 million tons of coal before the spring, he is allowing his imagination to run riot.

Major Roberts: It is vitally urgent.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the Minister able to tell the House what he is doing to prevent the price of home-produced coal rising to the same price as imported coal?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member had listened to my reply, or had understood it, he would have realised that this American coal, when it is imported, is to be mixed with the home variety of coal in regard to price levels.

Road Transport

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent it became necessary to rely upon road transport for the movement of coal during the fuel crisis.

Mr. Shinwell: During the period of abnormal weather early in the year, road vehicles were employed extensively on the movement of coal. The extent to which

road transport was used varied considerably from district to district. Particular use was made of road vehicles for the distribution of accumulated stocks of opencast coal, mainly in the North Midlands area.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister satisfied, bearing in mind the shortage of tyres, that the motor transport industry is in a condition to deal with any situation which may arise?

Mr. Shinwell: In these matters of transport, I am dependent upon the transport authorities. So far as I know, the position is reviewed from time to time, and my information is that we shall be able to carry the coal that is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES

Lamps (Fuel Economy)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the proportionate difference in the consumption of coal involved in burning electric lamps of the most economical and of inferior type; what steps have been taken to impress on the public and on local authorities the advantage in fuel economy by burning the most economical types of electric lamps; and whether steps will be taken to prohibit the manufacture of uneconomic electric lamps.

Mr. Shinwell: The ordinary filament lamp consumes from three to eight times as much coal as a discharge lamp, according to the type of discharge lamp used. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply that the demand for lamps of the latter type exceeds the supply, that he is actively encouraging their development, and in all the circumstances, does not consider it practicable to prohibit the manufacture of the ordinary filament lamp.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the Minister made inquiries to find out how long it will be before a more economical lamp is available?

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. Friend has in mind the fluorescent type of lamp, or lamps which use sodium or mercury, I am afraid it will take some time because the parts are in process of manufacture, and there are difficulties.

Mains Connection (Priority)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what grounds he continues to give priority to new houses over old houses for connection to the electric mains, even where applications have been outstanding for many years and where no alternative method of lighting is available.

Mr. Shinwell: It is obviously essential to instal modern methods of lighting when building new houses. With the present shortage of materials, this is bound to mean that some older houses cannot immediately be supplied with electric lighting in substitution for other forms of lighting.

Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that that ruling is extremely unfair to many people with older houses who put in applications some time before the war?

Mr. Shinwell: Obviously, new houses are not of much value to potential users unless supplied with lighting and heating, and therefore we have to allow for the necessary installations to be made. In the case of older types of houses, some means of heating or lighting is available, even if they are not completely modernised, and they are better off than a new house would be without them.

Mr. Vane: Why are oil lamps in new houses so much less satisfactory than oil lamps in old houses?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE FORCES (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. David Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the anomalous position prevailing by the existence of standing joint committees controlling police forces in administrative counties as compared with watch committees in county boroughs; and what steps he proposes taking with a view to bringing police administration in administrative counties in line with that existing in county boroughs.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am well aware of the differences between the composition and responsibilities of county and borough police authorities under the present law. It would require legislation

if it were decided to alter the position, and I can hold out no prospect of the early introduction of such legislation.

Mr. Jones: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a steadily growing volume of opinion, even among county councils, that the Standing joint committee method of controlling police forces is out of date?

Mr. Ede: I share that view.

Oral Answers to Questions — BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS AND PRISONS (ESCAPES)

Mr. Gage: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many escapes were made from Borstal institutes during the period 1st January to 31st December, 1946; the average time between escape and recapture; and the total number of crimes known to have been committed by detainees during such periods of escape;
(2) how many escapes were made from His Majesty's prisons during the period 1st January to 31st December, 1946; the average time between escape and recapture; and the total number of crimes known to have been committed by prisoners during such periods of escape.

Mr. Ede: There were, in the course of the year, 41,000 persons detained in prisons, and 4,500 in Borstal Institutions: and there were 165 escapes from prisons, and 662 from Borstal Institutions. I regret that the further information asked for is not available.

Mr. Gage: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of these escapes arise from the practice of governors of Borstal institutions ignoring a lad's previous history when putting him into a position of trust which enables him to escape? Will he take steps to stop this practice?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I believe that governors exercise a very wise discretion. One has to give a lad this amount of freedom before it can be ascertained whether he is capable of bearing the responsibility. With every one else, I regret that so many fail to shoulder the responsibility properly, but I should be reluctant to indicate to governors that I thought they were exercising their discretion other than wisely.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: If a Borstal institution is housed in a prison, is it classified as a Borstal institution or as a prison?

Mr. Ede: As a Borstal institution.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SCHOOLS (ABSCONDERS)

Mr. Gage: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many escapes were made from approved schools during the period 1st January to 31st December, 1946; the average time between escape and recapture; and the total number of crimes known to have been committed by inmates during such periods of escape.

Mr. Ede: Approved Schools are not closed institutions, and no central record is kept of occasions when a boy or girl is absent without leave for part of a day. The cases in which an absconder was absent for at least one night amounted in the course of the year to 3,318. I regret that the further information asked for is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPAPER (SERIAL STORY)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered a letter sent by the hon. Member for West Fife concerning an obscene publication entitled "Forever Amber," now appearing in serial form in a Sunday newspaper, of which he has been informed; and if he will take steps to prosecute the publishers.

Mr. Ede: The decision whether a prosecution shall be taken in any particular case does not rest with me. I understand that this publication has been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has come to the conclusion that it is not of such a character as to warrant proceedings under the criminal law relating to indecent and obscene publications.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the many prosecutions for comparatively trivial offences, is it not time that the law was altered so that there could be prosecutions in cases of this kind, which involve an appalling waste of newsprint for such a filthy publication?

Mr. Ede: I am reluctant to do anything that restricts the right of publication. I am constantly being urged to restrict publication of documents in which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman himself is interested, and I have consistently declined to yield to such overtures.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: While holding no brief whatever for this rather dull and repetitive book, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will resist every effort to create a police controlled State in this country, whereby publishers are prosecuted for doing their job?

Mr. Rankin: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer, will the ban on publishing the unexpurgated edition of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" now be removed?

Mr. Ede: There is no ban on it. The magistrate before whom this case came decided that this book was an indecent and obscene publication. That was the responsibility which the law places upon him, and I cannot ask him or any other magistrate to reverse that decision. Magistrate must hear the evidence, and come to their own conclusions.

Mr. Gallacher: In asking the Minister not to mix up requests about political publications with obscene publications, can I also ask him whether, in view of the shortage of school books and other necessary material, nothing can be done about such an obvious waste of valuable paper?

Mr. Ede: I can assure the hon. Member that this book has been out of print for a long time, certainly for some months, if not longer, so that no paper, other than that of a certain Sunday publication, has been wasted on it.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has lost his reputation as the champion of Christian morals by putting this matter on the basis of the shortage of newsprint?

Mr. Ede: I should hesitate to join with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) on standards of Christian morals.

Oral Answers to Questions — PET ANIMAL SHOPS (INSPECTION)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for the


registration and inspection of shops keeping pet animals, in view of the unsatisfactory conditions at present in operation in the majority of cases.

Mr. Ede: In the Metropolitan police district attention is given to such shops by the police in the ordinary course of their duty. The Inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals also visit such establishments. I have no information to show that there is a case for the measures suggested, but will gladly consider any information my hon. Friend may be able to send me.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRAY ANIMALS (HUMANE DESTRUCTION)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will allow the humane destruction of stray dogs and cats which have been found by the police after four days in place of the seven days now provided, in view of the fact that they are frequently kept in a state of starvation during this period owing to the unavailability of any suitable food.

Mr. Ede: So far as the Metropolitan police district is concerned, my information is that police stations and dogs homes are at present adequately supplied with food for stray dogs. As regards the provinces, if my hon. Friend can give me particulars of any cases where animals have suffered in the way suggested I will have inquiry made.

Mr. Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases dogs and cats are already in a state of starvation when found, and that to keep them another week without food is extremely cruel?

Mr. Ede: If my hon. Friend will give me any particulars of cases I will have them investigated, and the necessary action taken.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Would it not be a dangerous innovation, and involve needless destruction of many valuable pets, if their owners had not time to communicate with the police?

Mr. Ede: I have made an offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman). I am willing to consider most sympathetically, any evidence he can bring before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (NATURALISATION APPLICATIONS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the present number of applications for naturalisation awaiting consideration; the total number of successful and unsuccessful applications during the past two years; and the average time that must elapse before applications are considered and a decision given.

Mr. Ede: From the resumption of naturalisation on 1st January, 1946, to 30th June, 1947, 13,415 Certificates of Naturalisation were issued. Only 160 applications were refused. My Department is now able to deal with about 1,600 applications a month. There were, on 30th June last, 23,070 applications outstanding, and at the present rate of progress I hope that all outstanding applications originating in the provinces will be disposed of early in 1948. As regards the Metropolitan area, however, where the majority of applicants live, a much longer time must elapse, because the number of police officers available for the necessary inquiries is limited.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS VISITORS (ENTRY PROCEDURE)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conditions govern the issue of entry permits for visitors; and, in particular, what evidence is required of the availability of accommodation for them.

Mr. Ede: As regards nationals of those countries for which visas are no longer required, there is no requirement of anything in the nature of an entry permit before the traveller starts on his journey. When he arrives at a United Kingdom port, if it is clear that he is coming here for a visit as distinct from a prolonged or indefinite residence, the practice is to grant leave to land unless there is some reason for refusal in individual cases on grounds of character, or on medical or other special grounds; and it is not the duty of the immigration officer to inquire whether the visitor has an assurance of accommodation. The recent case of a travel agency bringing to this country a large party of children for whose accommodation adequate arrangements had not


been made beforehand indicates the importance of preventing such a party from starting until proper arrangements have been made for their reception and accommodation, and this matter is receiving my immediate attention.

Mr. Gammans: Was not the right hon. Gentleman definitely warned by the Travel Association, and also by the Workers' Travel Association, that this World Friendship Association had neither the finance nor the organisation to bring so many people to this country in the way they have done?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, I have no recollection of that.

Mr. Titterington: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether, having regard to Press comments on this matter, he will work in conjunction with the Ministry of Education in future?

Mr. Ede: I will work in conjunction with all the agencies that appear to be helpful in finding a solution of this matter. The last thing I desire to do is to prevent children from other countries coming here, and children from this country going abroad, on a mutual basis, because I am quite sure that, properly controlled, this is a most valuable piece of international work.

Mrs. Leah Manning: While agreeing with what my right hon. Friend has said about the importance of exchanges of young people, may I ask if it would not be advisable that such exchanges should be sponsored by bodies with experience, like the School Journeys Association?

Mr. Ede: I am considering how far it will be possible for this work to be done by the appropriate sponsoring bodies, but I have to be very careful not to be exclusive in this matter.

Mr. William Teeling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is now an official body, the Travel Board, in operation, which organises holidays abroad and in this country? Is not what has happened proof that Ministries are not working together as they should to organise proper holidays for these young people?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I should be reluctant to place this kind of work in the hands of only one organisation.

Mr. Haworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the few cases where this trouble has occurred are only a small fraction of the large number of exchanges which have been made? I am glad that he agrees that the object itself is desirable.

Mr. Ede: I think that the people whose activities have aroused comment were rather overwhelmed by the large number of applications they received—a bit surprised to find how popular this country is with people abroad.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Lists (Co-ordination)

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many people in London and Greater London are registered for housing with more than one local authority; and whether he will arrange to co-ordinate local authority housing lists for these areas in order to provide an accurate indication of the situation.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am aware of the overlap, but attempts to eliminate it would involve greater labour than the results would merit. When an applicant is housed, the London County Council inform the Metropolitan Borough Council, or vice versa, and for practical purposes this co-ordination seems adequate.

Mr. Wallace: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but is he aware that the L.C.C. are also bound up with the development of the rural areas outside the Metropolitan area, and it is in these areas that there is greater need for cooperation? Is he also aware that in some of these outside areas notices are being sent to people saying that there is no chance whatever of their being housed in that particular district, whereas, if there was this co-operation, it might be possible for this to be avoided.

Mr. Bevan: I will make inquiries to find out whether it is possible to extend to the areas outside the Metropolitan boroughs the arrangements made by the Metropolitan boroughs and the L.C.C. inside London.

Property, Teignmouth (Release)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consult with


the Minister of Works with a view to the release of the property, Channel View, Courtenay Place, Teignmouth, to the urban district council of Teignmouth in order to ease the acute housing position in that town.

Mr. Bevan: In July, 1946, I agreed to requisitioning by the council. In September, they decided not to requisition. In April, 1947, they applied again for powers to requisition, but in the meantime the Ministry of Works had arranged to make the premises available as offices urgently required for the Ministry of Food, and at this stage I have felt unable to disagree with their proposal.

Brigadier Rayner: Would the Minister look again into this question, and would he realise that this property was derequisitioned by the council in view of the fact that the owner was turning it into flats, that the housing situation in Teignmouth is worse than in most places, and that there is considerable public indignation with the Ministry of Works in making this accommodation available for Government offices?

Mr. Bevan: If there is public indignation in Teignmouth, obviously it should be diverted to the local authority which, in this case, was offered the premises and refused them; and in the meantime we had to make use of them for other appropriate purposes.

Temporary Programme

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health what is the present extent of the temporary housing programme; when it will be completed and the scheme wound up.

Mr. Bevan: The temporary housing programme comprises some 156,500 houses and is expected to be complete by the Spring of 1948.

Mr. Sparks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the termination of the temporary housing scheme is' likely to accelerate permanent construction and particularly with regard to equipment.

Mr. Bevan: The cessation of the temporary housing scheme, which was and must always be competitive with permanent housing will make it possible to provide additional fitments for permanent houses. It is undesirable to continue the

temporary housing programme at the expense of the permanent housing programme.

Furnished Houses (Rent Control)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to prolong the continuance in force of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which is due to expire on 31st December, 1947; and if he will state the number of cases submitted to Furnished Houses Rent Tribunals in the London and Greater London areas for each month to the nearest convenient date, giving the reasons for any decline in the number of cases submitted.

Mr. Bevan: The question of prolonging the operation of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, is under consideration. As the answer to the latter part of the Question involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Most of the Tribunals in London were established over nine months ago and it was to be expected that the initial volume of applications would fall off.

Mr. Sparks: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any possibility of amending the Act to provide a greater period of security of tenure beyond the existing three months, because it is the experience of large numbers of tenants who submit cases to these tribunals that subsequently they are dispossessed of the accommodation, and in the case of the Southern Tribunal where 107 tenants referred their cases no less than 64 were subsequently displaced by the landlords at the end of the three months' period?

Mr. Bevan: I should like to receive additional evidence for the last part of my hon. Friend's statement, because it sounds very alarming. His supplementary goes very wide of the original question and is concerned with the content of an Act itself. I would point out that two matters must always be taken into consideration. If we give too long security to a tenant it is not always the tenant of a landlord but the tenant of a principal tenant who will be protected and we might shut off a great deal of accommodation which would otherwise be available. These facts can be taken into account by the House in three months when the Act expires, but I think that the Act on the whole has worked remarkably well.

Mr. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable advantage is taken of the short period of notice by landlords who are affected when the rents are reduced, and will he realise that it is a very important matter from the point of view of the tenants themselves as there are other matters which ought to be taken into consideration when the Act is continued?

Mr. Bevan: In the first place, my hon. Friend must bear in mind that one of the very important by-products of the rent tribunals is to keep the rents of furnished lettings down where no appeal has been made to the tribunal. In the second place, where there are hardships created quite often I have given the power of requisition in order to prevent landlords from imposing hardships on tenants. Thirdly, my hon. Friend is really going

FURNISHED HOUSES (RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1946.


Number of references made to Tribunals each month in Central London and Outer London.



Central London.
Outer London.


Month.
Referred for first time.
Referred for reconsideration.
Total.
Number of Tribunals at end of month.
Referred for first time
Referred for reconsideration.
Total.
Number of Tribunals at end of month.


June, 1946
…
10
0
10
2
—
—
—
—


July, 1946
…
156
0
156
4
—
—
—
—


August, 1946
…
325
0
325
8
4
0
4
2


September, 1946
…
383
0
383
8
174
0
174
6


October, 1946
…
509
11
520
9
196
1
197
7


November, 1946
…
574
6
580
9
264
2
266
8


December, 1946
…
400
32
432
9
175
5
180
9


January, 1947
…
472
24
496
9
184
6
190
9


February, 1947
…
1,505
30
1,535
9
166
3
169
9


March, 1947
…
432
27
459
9
186
11
197
9


April, 1947
…
345
52
397
9
190
58
248
9


May, 1947
…
217
50
267
9
172
32
204
9


June, 1947
…
217
55
272
9
103
12
115
9


Note.—References for Central London made in February, 1947, include 1,158 made to the East London Tribunal chiefly in respect of large blocks of flats referred in their entirety either by lessors or by the local authority. The remaining 8 Tribunals received in all rather fewer references than in January or March.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Dental Benefit

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to secure that dental facilities are made available to persons entitled to dental benefit but unable to obtain it owing to the present dispute

far beyond the original question and is now asking for a new Rents Act.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: is the Minister not aware that a lot of people will not appeal to the tribunals for the very reason that they are afraid that they will be turned out of their apartments, and have not I myself reported particular cases to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Bevan: This is always a matter of balancing considerations If we tie a tenant and a sub-tenant together too long by Act of Parliament we might create most appalling friction and at the same time deny accommodation to those in need. Furthermore, where a tenant is sometimes lethargic or loath to apply to a tribunal the local authority has power to apply on the tenant's behalf.

Following is the answer to the latter part of the Question:

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Touche) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance on 17th April.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the length of time that has elapsed since 17th


April and the hardships which have taken place during that period, is the right hon. Gentleman not able to tell the House if there is any further action contemplated?

Mr. Bevan: There is no further action under contemplation, but the extent of the distress is not as great as we first feared, and the area of distress is being gradually reduced.

District Water Supply (Northampton)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Health when a decision will be given on proposals submitted by the Northampton Rural District Council with regard to a district water supply scheme and on which a local inquiry was held on 1st April, 1947.

Mr. Bevan: I have suggested modifications to secure economy and conformity with other possible developments in the county. I am awaiting further information from the Council to enable me to give a decision on their proposals.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that delay in giving decisions on these schemes holds up the long-term planning of housing, and does he appreciate that some of the proposals put forward by the Ministry involve the necessity of taking water supplies from the local authorities near by, which cannot supply their own areas?

Mr. Bevan: There are three replies to that supplementary question. One is that if we were able to sanction all these schemes at once, we should not be able to proceed with them because of the shortage of steel; the second answer is that it is necessary to co-ordinate the schemes of a particular parish or urban council with the county council scheme, otherwise there would be hopeless technical problems; and the third answer is that this is done under the Act of 1944, which the hon. and learned Gentleman supported so enthusiastically.

Tuberculosis Allowances

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider raising the allowance of 27s. a week for single men under treatment for tuberculosis; and whether he is aware that this low scale prevents many factory workers from

accepting treatment and defeats the aims of the scheme of mass radiography now working in various parts of the country.

Mr. Bevan: As the present allowances schemes will be replaced by other arrangements when the new social legislation is completed by the proposed National Assistance Bill, it would be inappropriate to revise it at this stage. I know of nothing to support the generalisation in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that when this scheme was introduced it gave very great hope to many sufferers from tuberculosis, and many of those who were employed found it difficult to give up their employment to undergo the treatment, because of the low rate of allowance?

Mr. Bevan: I have said that there is no evidence in my possession to support the last part of my hon. Friend's statement. The scheme has done very great service indeed in the prevention of the development of tuberculosis, and next Session—if I am not anticipating too much—when the National Assistance Bill will be introduced, it will be assimilated into the wider scheme.

Hospitals (Nurses' Training)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Minister of Health (1) from how many hospitals has recognition as training schools for nurses been withdrawn by the General Nursing Council during the last year; and from how many further hospitals is this withdrawal proposed;
(2) how many hospital beds have had to be closed through shortage of nursing staff because of the withdrawal of their recognition as training schools for nurses by the General Nursing Council during the last year; and how many further beds will have to be closed if the withdrawals now proposed are carried out.

Mr. Bevan: The hospitals number 24 and 37, respectively, but in many cases grouping arrangements will enable training to continue; as to the number of beds closed, I have no information.

Mr. Hastings: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises what a serious matter is this closing of beds to the people of this country, even if they are few in


number; and if he will use the powers he has under the Nurses Registration Act, 1939, to override these decisions of the General Nursing Council, if he feels that they are undesirable in the public interest?

Mr. Bevan: In answer to the last part of the question, I should have no hesitation in overriding the decisions of the General Nursing Council if I thought that they were inappropriate, and if I thought they would bring about a reduction of vital hospital accommodation; at the same time it is necessary to realise, as I am sure my hon. Friend realises, that we must maintain nurse-training standards, and that patients and nurses suffer if the patients are treated and the nurses are trained in inappropriate institutions.

Earl Winterton: Is it not a fact that the General Nursing Council is generally regarded as the authoritative body in this case, although, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, he has a perfect right, if necessary, to override their instructions.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will my right hon. Friend consider making further representations to the General Nursing Council in respect of fever training hospitals where it is very difficult to get the requisite 100 beds occupancy as the average for the whole year, and where the training is very high?

Mr. Bevan: I will keep that in mind.

Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that St. Leonard's Hospital, Shore-ditch, will have to close down if the decision of the General Nursing Council is implemented, and thereby important hospital accommodation will be lost to an area of London where it is very necessary?

Mr. Bevan: I am hoping that this tragedy will be averted. I believe that discussions are taking place at the present time with the L.C.C. in order to bring about a regrouping. This hospital will be associated with other hospitals, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the present conditions at Shoreditch are in many respects very undesirable.

Nursing (Working Party Report)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health if he has yet received the report

of the Interdepartmental Working Party on Nursing; whether he proposes to publish this report; and when it may be expected to appear.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. My right hon. friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Labour and National Service and I have received the report and propose to publish it. I expect it will be available in about three weeks' time.

Cottage Hospital, Cockermouth

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the urgent need of a maternity wing being added to the Cockermouth Cottage Hospital; that funds are available for this purpose; and if he will now withdraw his veto.

Mr. Bevan: When the Question was before me last year, my information was that the existing maternity accommodation would suffice if enough midwives could be found fully to staff it. As I then told the hospital, their scheme should not proceed pending consideration of all the hospital needs of the area by the Regional Hospital Board, which has now been appointed.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a very wide area and that maternity cases are very often to be taken 20 or 30 miles by ambulance, and that they have the money and the plans? If he will give his approval, it will be a very great service to this locality in this very difficult time.

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that money and plans are not sufficient these days. There have to be labour and materials as well. Furthermore, I think it would be very bad indeed to make definite alterations in maternity accommodation before the Regional Hospital Board now preparing plans has an opportunity of submitting them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND, BARROW-IN- FURNESS (INQUIRY)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Health what he has done, or proposes to do, in relation to the Barrow-in-Furness (Poaka Beck No. 2) Compulsory Purchase Order, 1946, for the compulsory purchase of about 1,000 acres of agricultural land.

Mr. Bevan: A number of objections to the Order have been received and a public local inquiry will be held into the proposals.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a number of owners, farmers and farmworkers are very much disturbed at the sterilisation of this land, which is very fruitful land, and will not he consult the Minister of Agriculture before he makes a decision?

Mr. Bevan: All these matters are taken into consideration before a compulsory purchase Order is made. There are always conflicting claims, and that is where some of these difficulties arise. The claims of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Health have to be carefully assessed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Block Grants

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health, if he will take into consideration the heavy losses to the rates of some local authorities from the operations of the derating legislation of 1929 in the review and adjustment of the Exchequer block grant to local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: Discussions with representative associations of local authorities are now taking place and until these have been concluded I cannot indicate the basis on which it is proposed that the new block grant shall be distributed.

Mr. Sparks: Could my right hon. Friend be a little more precise and say whether or not losses from derating will be a factor to be taken into consideration?

Mr. Bevan: I really cannot anticipate what the content of legislation will be.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: In view of the vital urgency of encouraging production, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making an early statement that derating benefits will be continued?

Mr. Bevan: No, it is quite impossible for me and entirely out of accord with the procedure of the House to anticipate the content of legislation.

Functions

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health what progress he has made in settling the range of functions to be entrusted to local authorities; and how soon the rearrangement of the areas of metropolitan borough councils and the distribution of functions between them and the L.C.C., which were suspended last year, will be resumed.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is aware of the measures at present before Parliament affecting the functions of local authorities. There is no present intention of resuming the inquiry to which reference is made in the latter part of the Question.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister of Health aware that continued suspense in London is putting a dead hand on some departments of London local government?

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that the present situation for many local authorities is unsatisfactory, but until the pattern of London and especially the probable distribution of the population is better known, it would be premature to determine the function of local authorities and the relationship between local authorities; I am hoping that before very long there will be wider discussion on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (REPORT)

Earl Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to afford time for a Debate on the recent Report of the Committee of Privileges.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the noble Lord to the statement which I made on this subject in the House yesterday.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adopting the procedure which I understand is adopted in the courts, requiring, or requesting through you, Mr. Speaker, or the Serjeant at Arms, whichever be the appropriate authority, a medical certificate from time to time as to the state of health of the hon. Member for Gravesend in view of the fact that we are in complete doubt as to when he will be able to return to this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman further, having regard to the


fact that while there was no difference of opinion on the main issue, there was complete conflict of opinion in the Committee as to the extent to which privilege extends to a Committee upstairs, undertake that the Motions on the Paper tabled by myself will be debated before any action is taken in regard to Mr. Schofield, since his position is to some extent affected by the issue raised by the Motions?

[That this House doth disagree with paragraph 17 of the Report of the Committee of Privileges.]

[That this House doth disagree with paragraph 19 of the Report of the Committee of Privileges.]

Mr. Morrison: I should have thought with regard to the Motions to which the noble Lord referred that we might be able to take them into account in the general Debate which takes place, but I cannot presume on the Rulings of the Chair. With regard to the medical certificate, I understand that the hon. Member for Gravesend did have a letter from his doctor which advised him that he ought to go away.—[Interruption.] There it is. My own feeling is that natural justice requires that we ought not to debate the case until the hon. Member is here whatever we may think about his absence, and, therefore, I do not see how we can very well debate the matter until he is available. We certainly must debate the matter and we must come to certain conclusions about it.

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman's decision with regard to the main matter of the report also cover the matter dealing with the special report issued by the Committee, because it did occur to me that the issues raised in the refusal of an editor to answer questions during the investigation by the Committee did not have any immediate connection with the issues raised by the report on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Before my right hon. Friend gives his answer to that, he might answer at the same time whether it is not true that the special report can be considered in the absence of the hon. Member for Gravesend, because it raises issues that are not the same as those affecting him?

Mr. Morrison: The point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and

my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) are perfectly fair and legitimate points, and prima facie I can see they might be dealt with separately, and indeed, they might be dealt with expeditiously if the House so agrees, but I am most anxious that this shall be dealt with by the House as a whole and that we shall do our best to avoid any party lines about it. If the House will be so good, I should like to have some conversation with the right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition, or through the usual channels, in the hope that we can deal with this in a way which would express united feeling on the part of the House as a whole.

Earl Winterton: Is it not a fact that the decision does not rest with Mr. Speaker—if I may say so with respect—since I am informed that the Motion I put on the Order Paper is in Order and must be debated at the time when the report of the Committee of Privileges is taken?

Mr. Morrison: In that case I do not know why the noble Lord asked me for facilities.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask whether it was fully understood that "Committees upstairs" referred to just now in question and answer meant Committees upstairs in the colloquial sense and did not mean Committees in the strict sense of Committees of the House? I thought that the way in which this was put in question and answer might lead to some misunderstanding.

Mr. Morrison: I understood that the sense of the question meant party gatherings upstairs, and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that, whatever may be said about their rights or absence of rights, we must distinguish in language between party meetings and Committees of the House.

Mr. Byers: Would the Lord President of the Council agree that it is desirable in the interests of the House and of the individuals concerned that this special report shou4d be dealt with expeditiously so that the House and the individuals are not kept in suspense; and will he give an undertaking that something will be done shortly and that they will not be kept waiting during 10 weeks of Recess.

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly give consideration to the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. I do not know that it is vital that it should be dealt with urgently. However, it is a fair point for consideration. It is not so much the editor of the newspaper concerned who is being kept in suspense as 400 Members of this House on whom suspicion rests.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the right hon. Gentleman make an appeal to the man affected to come forward and make an open confession and relieve Mr. Schofield of any further responsibility.

Mr. Morrison: If I make independent approaches to the editor concerned with a view to persuading him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, the Member"]—Oh, well, if there be a sinner among us who would like to come and repent nobody would be more delighted than I. I thought the suggestion was that I should approach the editor, a proceeding which might land me in front of the Committee of Privileges.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) referred to "the man affected," and surely that could mean either the particular hon. Member or the editor in question?

Hon. Members: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Ministry Staff, Birmingham

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour, what staff is employed by his department in the premises of the A1 Tyre Company, 236–9, Broad Street, Birmingham; and how many interviews they give there daily.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The number of staff is 102, employed chiefly on the registration and placing of applicants for employment. About 12 of this staff are on call for interviewing duties and the daily average of interviews in the last four weeks was 71.

Mr. Lindsay: Can the Minister give us any indication how long he wishes to continue to keep this building?

Mr. Isaacs: Only until it is possible for us to obtain alternative premises.

Building Trade Trainees, Lancashire

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Labour (1), how many men, partially trained at training centres in Lancashire as bricklayers, are without employment and therefore unable to complete their training; what is the average length of time which elapses between leaving these training centres and obtaining employment; and to what factors he attributes any unemployment of these men;
(2) how many men, partially trained at training centres in Lancashire as plumbers, are without employment and therefore unable to complete their training; what is the average length of time which elapses between leaving these training centres and obtaining employment; and to what factors he attributes any unemployment of these men.

Mr. Isaacs: Two hundred and seventy-seven bricklayers and 40 plumbers trained at Government training centres in Lancashire have not yet been placed for continued training with employers. It is not possible, without special inquiry, to give the average length of time between the end of the training course and taking up employment, but in the twelve weeks ended 30th June, out of 565 bricklayers and 141 plumbers placed in employment, 224 and 107 respectively proceeded direct from the Centre to employment. The output from the Centres in this region has temporarily exceeded the openings available for trainees and, for this reason, further allocation to the Centres has been suspended for the time being.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these men, most of whom fought gallantly during the war and have volunteered for this kind of work in order to contribute to national reconstruction, now feel that there is a definite prejudice against them, and will he do everything in his power to remove this prejudice—from whatever source it may spring?

Mr. Isaacs: Most certainly, if my hon. Friend will give me evidence of any such cases.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some weeks ago I drew his attention to the fact that


some of these young workers were excluded from working on a particular building site in Bolton in Lancashire, and has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries on this matter because trainees are not encouraged by such treatment?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will recollect that I not only made inquiries, but gave a full answer as to the position and stated what had been done to remedy it.

Poles (A.E.U. Decision)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Labour in view of the urgent need for greater production, what action he proposes to take in view of the recent decision made by the Amalgamated Engineering Union under which all Poles employed in that industry are being compelled to leave their jobs.

Mr. Isaacs: The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Trade Unions have informed me that they are unable to conclude a national agreement on the employment of Poles in engineering or to take any further action in the matter. I am now taking the matter up with the individual Unions and have asked for an early meeting of the Amalgamated Engineering Union Executive to discuss the point raised by the hon. Member. The effect of this decision on the production of mining machinery and electrical plant is one of great seriousness.

Mr. Gammans: Does not the Minister agree that unless he takes definite action in this matter, he will surrender to a trade union the right to decide how many men shall work in a particular industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not know what body other than the industry itself has the right to decide in the light of existing circumstances, but that point does not arise. We have been negotiating with the Federation in the hope that we might reach an overriding agreement with all the unions. That has not been possible, however, and we now have to go back to negotiations with separate unions and we are hoping that there will be some success in that direction.

Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that in some very important engineering industries, especially in my constituency, employers are dismissing their workpeople at

65 by reintroducing an old prewar rule that at 65 men must leave their employ, and that if this is continued it will aggravate the difficulties already existing in the industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I fail to see what that has to do with the Question asked.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman has correctly emphasised the difficulty and importance of this matter, but can he hold out any hope that he will be able to make a statement before the House rises?

Mr. Isaacs: I would not go so far as to say that I can hold out hope, but should I reach any conclusions I will certainly make a statement. The difficulty is that the two chief officers with whom we wish to negotiate are temporarily out of the country.

Mr. Scollan: Can the Minister say how many men are involved?

Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice. They are involved in a great number of firms in very small numbers. In one firm, for example, six men are involved out of 700 employees, but this is causing serious interference with the flow of production.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the Minister inform the House on what grounds objection is made to the employment of Poles?

Mr. Isaacs: Since I have to negotiate with the unions, I think it is as well not to say things which will upset them before I start.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' RELEASE)

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that, under the new release programmes, men in Group 62 will be released from all three Services before the end of 1947, he will extend the concession of Class B release to selected university students in groups above Group 62.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir. The reasons which caused this concession to be limited to Groups 1 to 62 are not affected by the fact that the men in Group 62 are now likely to be released rather earlier than was expected. The universities have already far more applicants than places, and any extension of


special releases would almost certainly mean that some men released in Class A would fail to obtain places.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that the number of men with university scholarships in the later 60 groups of the Army is not very large? Would it not be a great advantage to the nation if those men were released?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It might be regarded as morally wrong that men in Class B should take precedence of men in the Class A release scheme.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that in the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London there are not 90 per cent. ex-Service men and 10 per cent. from the schools but only 50–50, and that there is plenty of room for ex-Service men, if they were given preference?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is not the advice given to us by the Joint University Recruiting Board, which consists of the vice-chancellors of the universities.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is it not rather absurd to talk about moral wrongness in this matter? What is being asked for is, now that conscription is only for one year, that some boys with two, three or four years in the Services should not be held back while boys coming straight from school are able to go straight into the universities. To pretend there is some moral difficulty, and comparing them with men who actually fought in the war, is rather absurd.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The inequity to which I referred is allowing a man out from Class B when he would prevent a Class A man from getting a place.

Mrs. Manning: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some young men went into the Forces at 17½? Will he consider getting them out, especially when universities are willing to have them?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We must keep enough places in the universities to take all the Class A men. If we release men who are in Class B, giving them the preference to come out before their turn, they will keep Class A men out of places.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (MURDERED BRITISH SERGEANTS)

Mr. Edelman: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies: If he has any further information concerning the two British sergeants in Palestine?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): It is with deep regret that I confirm the reports which have been current during the past 24 hours that the two British sergeants, Paice and Martin, abducted at Nathanya on 12th July, have been murdered by Jewish terrorists.
I received today the following telegram from the High Commissioner for Palestine:
Most deeply regret to inform you that the two bodies were found at 9 o'clock this morning in an eucalyptus grove at Umm Uleiqa, near Beit Lid. They were hanging from two trees. Notices were pinned to the bodies saying that the men had been hanged by the National Military Organisation as British spies. The first body was cut down by an Army captain, and as he bent over it a small bomb exploded, injuring him in the face. The surrounding area was found to have been mined.
In the long history of violence in Palestine there has scarcely been a more dastardly act than the cold-blooded and calculated murder of these innocent young men after holding them as hostages for more than a fortnight. I can only express what I know to be the deep feelings of horror and revulsion shared by all of us here at this barbarous crime. I am sure that this House would also wish me to convey their most sincere sympathy with the families and friends of the murdered men in the anguish they have endured during the days of waiting and now in their irreparable loss.
His Majesty's Government also pay tribute to the Services in Palestine for their courage and good bearing in conditions of risk and arduous responsibility.
Such an outrage against men discharging a service in fulfilment of international obligations is not only abhorrent in the eyes of all civilised persons everywhere, but must surely mean the final condemnation of the terrorists in the eyes of all their own people. We can only hope that this latest act will stir the Jewish community in Palestine to root out this evil from their midst.

Mr. Edelman: In view of those terrible facts, will the Minister take unrelenting steps to see to it that both the authors and the inspirers of this horrifying crime are brought to justice? Will he also see that the dependants of the innocent victims are properly cared for?

Mr. Creech Jones: The High Commissioner, the police and the military authorities will do and are doing everything in their power to secure that end. I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in regard to the second part of the Question.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Might I first of all associate all my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expression of sympathy that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed towards the families of the victims of this dastardly outrage? The father of one of the boys, as in the case of the hon. Member who asked the Question, is in my constituency. May I also associate all Members on this side of the House with the expressions of gratitude which the right hon. Gentleman has offered to all our people in Palestine who are having to go through these extremely difficult and dangerous times?
Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he realises that we, on this side of the House, have refrained from asking for any Debate on this matter as long as any hope existed; but now that the final tragic news is confirmed, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be impossible for this House to adjourn for some months without a discussion in which the right hon. Gentleman could state fully what steps the Government intended to take, in view of this challenge to all authority?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think that the question put to me in regard to the possibility of some discussion on this matter must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there has been any expression of horror at this outrage by the Jewish Agency, on behalf of the Jewish people?

Mr. Creech Jones: I can only say that so far I have not seen any official statement from the Agency.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I, speaking for nobody but myself and as one who has taken his share in trying to awaken public sympathy for what I regard as a just cause, feel that I ought to express my own sense of deep shame and humiliation that this cause should have been so stained with innocent blood.

Mr. Gallacher: While I join with the others in expressions of feeling about this terrible event and sympathy with the families of the victims, I would like to ask the Minister if he will see to it that special consideration is given to the families of these sergeants? If a man is killed while doing his duty, his mother is not entitled to any consideration unless she passes a means test. I would ask that there shall be no means test, so far as these men's dependants are concerned, but that special consideration be given to their families.

Mr. Janner: May I, also, as one who frequently advocates the justice of the Zionist cause, express my very deep horror and my deep sympathy with the relatives? May I say that there is no question at all that the whole Jewish community in this country and elsewhere—the Jewish Agency and the Zionist Federation—regard this dastardly deed with horror?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask the Minister whether martial law has been imposed?

Mr. Creech Jones: During the periods of the search certain areas were cordoned off and very strong security measures were taken. I think that position applies in certain areas at the present time.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is there any reason why martial law should not be instituted at once?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have just answered that since these men have been kidnapped strong security measures have been taken in certain areas. I believe that there are still areas where the special defence regulations operate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 4th August—Supply (20th allotted day); Report. Debate on Germany and Austria. At 9.30 p.m. the Report stage of all outstanding Votes will be put from the Chair. Committee and remaining stages of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill. Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 2) Order. Consideration of Amendments to the Agriculture Bill, which are expected to be received from another place today and of further Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill.
Tuesday, 5th August—Consideration of Amendments to the Electricity Bill and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, which are expected to be received from another place today.
Wednesday and Thursday, 6th and 7th August—All stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill will be taken. A Debate will take place on the state of the nation.
On a convenient day my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will propose a Motion of thanks to the Civil and Military Services of the Crown in India. During the week any outstanding Business will be taken as opportunity offers.
If all outstanding Business has been disposed of, it is hoped to adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday, 8th August. It may be generally agreeable to suspend the Rule on that day in order to complete outstanding Business and allow time for the Adjournment Motion rather than to meet on Saturday, 9th August. I will make a further statement later.
We shall propose that the House do meet again on Monday, 20th October. It is expected that Prorogation will take place on that day and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 21st October.
I would remind the House that power already exists for Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course should be necessary in the public interest.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House first of all, in regard to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) just now, whether he can make the necessary arrangements to allow us to have a discussion, as I think the House will agree we must do upon recent developments in Palestine before we adjourn? Perhaps how to arrange that time may be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Morrison: Certainly discussions can proceed through the usual channels. We will see what can be done to agree. But I am bound to say that my own instinctive reaction—it is only an instinctive reaction—is that I am not sure that a Debate would be useful at this particular time.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Eden: I tell the right hon. Gentleman straight away that that would be absolutely unacceptable. It is quite unthinkable that this House should adjourn without a discussion of this matter in its true setting. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that he can find facilities if it is discussed calmly through the usual channels, we would have to find some means even if it meant sitting on Saturday or some other day. I have one other question with regard to the Business on Wednesday and Thursday. So far as we are concerned, it would, I think, meet the general convenience if the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill were taken formally and if the Government would then move the Adjournment of the House for a Debate on the state of the nation, if that is agreeable.

Mr. Morrison: That is all right by us, Sir.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand from the answer of the Leader of the House that the Debate will take place in the way the right hon. Gentleman asked?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Member would speak a little louder I might be able to hear what he says.

Mr. Eden: I have two other questions to ask the right hon. Gentleman about Business. First of all, I see that the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill is being taken in another place today and we are


asked to consider the Lords Amendments next Monday. In view of this, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us at all when these Amendments will be available to hon. Members? As far as I can see they cannot be available until Saturday morning at the earliest. It seems hardly reason-able to ask us to debate them on Monday.

Mr. Morrison: I am advised that arrangements are being made whereby the Amendments will be available to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Eden: With regard to the Lords Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill, as I understand it a new edition has now been produced or is about to be produced, though the Lords discussed the Bill some time ago. I understand that it is to be in the Vote Office today. We do not know whether it is available now. Oh, here it is—74 pages of Amendments made available today, to be discussed tomorrow. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is treating the House seriously?

Mr. Bowles: Before my right hon. Friend replies, may I ask is this not a good argument for the immediate abolition of the House of Lords?

Mr. Morrison: I am only the Leader of this House. I am very sorry that this should have occurred, but I am told that the great bulk of the Amendments are of a drafting character or are agreed and that the number of really contentious ones is limited, so that while I express my regret, I do not think it causes the House too much inconvenience.

Mr. George Thomas: In view of the dates which my right hon. Friend has given to the House—that Prorogation will take place the first day we return and that the new Session will start the next day—may I ask him whether it is proposed to do without the Welsh Day which was promised for this Session?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir We did give Welsh hon. Members an undertaking that there should be a Debate in the autumn and there will be, but it will have to be in the new Session. I submit that that does not make any material difference. The Debate will take place.

Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that the majority of the House have made up their minds that they are going to reject all these Amendments, is there any necessity for discussing them?

Mr. Morrison: I follow the point of my hon. Friend, but he is a great admirer of the British Constitution and we must let this matter take its proper course.

Mr. Eden: May I be informed whether the Government have taken that decision, and, if so, cannot they just proceed with their rubber stamp?

Mr. Morrison: I never said so. I was only being polite and friendly to my hon. Friend, which is wise on my part.

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will place on record the fact that this House has sat for two years and has never yet debated the best use of our scientific resources and manpower?

Mr. Morrison: That may be so—though I think the House has debated it. There was a long Adjournment Debate one day. I share my hon. Friend's wish that some day the Opposition may choose it for a Supply Debate.

Major Cecil Poole: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the discussions through the usual channels for Monday's Business, due recognition was taken of the fact that Monday's Debate on Germany and Austria must of necessity be carried on in a very unreal atmosphere, in view of the Business of the House for Wednesday and Thursday? Would it not be desirable to have further discussions through the usual channels with a view to selecting other Business for Monday, if possible, in view of the fact that we shall be debating Germany and Austria without this country's economic back-ground?

Mr. Morrison: The choice of subjects of debate in Supply is the historic and constitutional right of the Opposition and I do not want to interfere with them about it.

Sir T. Moore: As the Debate on Wednesday and Thursday may be, indeed, a "grand inquest," will the right hon. Gentleman consider suspending the Rule on Wednesday?

Mr. Morrison: I should have thought that if we had two normal Parliamentary days, that would really be enough, and we have some other Business we must fit in. It will be a difficult week and, therefore, I think it would be difficult to suspend the Rule.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply and Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first two proposed Resolutions shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock, by paragraph 6 of Standing Order No. 14, as modified by the Order made upon 12th November."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand this Motion.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Committee stage of the Votes to which the Motion relates, will be taken tonight, and the Report stage on Monday. It is necessary that this Motion should be passed today. It is in the usual form.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 116.

Division No. 345.]
AYES.
]3.52 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hoy, J


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hubbard, T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, S O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Alpass, J. H.
Deer, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Delargy, H J.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Diamond J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Attewell, H. C.
Dobbie, W.
Irving, W. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Dodds, N. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A


Awbery, S. S
Driberg, T. E. N.
Janner, B.


Ayles W. H.
Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Jay, D. P T.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Dumpleton, C. W
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Balfour, A.
Durbin, E. F. M
Jones, Rt Hon. A. C (Shipley)


Barstow, P. G
Dye, S.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)


Barton, C
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Battley, J. R
Edelman, M
Keenan, W


Bechervaise, A E.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Kenyon, C


Benson, G.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Key, C. W.


Berry, H.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
King, E. M


Beswick, F.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kinley, J


Bing, G. H C.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kirby, B. V


Binns, J.
Farthing W J
Kirkwood, D


Blackburn, A. R.
Fernyhough, E
Lavers, S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Field, Captain W. J.
Lawson, Rt Hon. J. J


Blyton, W. R
Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E.)
Lee, F (Hulme)


Boardman, H.
Follick, M
Leslie, J R.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Forman, J. C.
Lever, N. H


Bowen, R.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Levy, B. W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lewis, J. (Botton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt, Exch'ge)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lipson, D. L.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gallacher, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Bramall, E. A.
Ganley, Mrs C. S
Longden, F.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gilzean, A.
Lyne, A. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Glanville, J E. (Consett)
McEntee, V. La T


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Goodrich, H. E
McGhee, H G


Bruce, Major D. W T
Gordon,-Walker, P. C
McGovern, J


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mack, J. D


Burden, T. W
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Byers, Frank
Grenfell, D. R
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Carmichael, James
Grey, C F
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Castle, Mrs B. A
Grierson, E
Mainwaring, W. H


Chamberlain R. A
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W


Champion, A J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mann, Mrs J


Chater, D.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)


Chetwynd, G. R
Guy, W H
Mathers, G.


Cluse, W. S
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mayhew, C. P.


Cobb, F A.
Hall, W G.
Medland, H. M


Cocks, F. S.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Mellish, R. J


Coldrick, W
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mikardo, Ian


Collick, P
Hardman, D. R
Mitchison, G R


Colman, Miss G M
Hardy, E A
Monslow, W


Corlett, Dr. J.
Harrison, J.
Moody, A. S


Corvedale, Viscount
Hastings, Dr Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Cove, W. G.
Haworth, J.
Morley, R.


Crawley, A
Henderson, A (Kingswinford)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Cunningham, P.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Herbison, Miss M
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hobson, C R
Mort, D. L.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Holman, P
Moyle, A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
House, G.
Mulvey, A.




Murray, J. D.
Shurmer, P.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Nally, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Viant, S. P.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Silverman, S S (Nelson)
Wadsworth, G


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Skeffington, A M
Walkden, E.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Walker, G. H.


Oldfield, W H
Skinnard, F. W.
Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)


Orbach, M.
Smith, H N (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Palmor, A. M. F
Snow, Capt. J W
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Parker, J.
Solley, L. J
Weitzman, D.


Parkin, B. T.
Sorensen, R W.
Wells, P L. (Faversham)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Pearson, A.
Sparks, J. A
West, D. G.


Peart, Thomas F.
Stamford, W
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Piratin, P.
Stophen, C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wigg, Col. G E


Porter, E (Warrington)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Wilkes, L.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Stubbs, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, M. Philips
Summerskill, Dr Edith
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Proctor, W. T
Swingler, S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Pryde, D. J
Sylvester, G O.
Williams, D J. (Neath)


Ranger, J
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Rankin, J
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Reid, T (Swindon)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willis, E.


Rhodes, H
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wills, Mrs E A


Richards, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilson, J. H.


Ridealgh, Mrs M.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Woods, G. S


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)
Wyatt, W.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Yates, V F.


Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Rogers, G H. R
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Zilliacus, K.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thurtle, Ernest



Scollan, T.
Tiffany, S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Segal, Dr S.
Titterington, M. F.
Mr. Simmonds and


Sharp, Granville
Tolley, L
Mr. Popplewell.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Tomlinson, Rt Hon G.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr P. G
Gage, C.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Galbraith, Cmdr T D
Orr-Ewing, I L


Astor, Hon. M.
Gammans, L. D.
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Barlow, Sir J.
Grant, Lady
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Gridley, Sir A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Beechman, N. A.
Grimston, R V
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P
Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)
Raikes, H V.


Birch, Nigel
Haughton, S. G.
Rayner, Brig. R


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C (Wells)
Head, Brig A. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Roberts, Maj. P. G (Ecclesall)


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Savory Prof D. L


Bower, N
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Scott, Lord W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hogg, Hon Q.
Shepherd, W S (Bucklow)


Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Spearman, A C M


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Stanley, Rt Hon. O


Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.
Keeling, E. H
Stoddart-Scott, Col M


Bullock Capt M
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Butcher, H. W
Legge-Bourke, Mai, E. A H
Stuart, Rt. Hon J (Moray)


Butler Rt Hon R. A (S'ffr'n W 'ld' n)
Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Sutcliffe, H


Channon, H.
Linstead, H N.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling William


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Low, Brig A. R W
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O E
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Touche, G. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macdonald Sir P (I. of Wight)
Turton, R. H


Davidson. Viscountess
Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M. F


De la Bère, R.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D.


Digby, S. W
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drayson, G B
Marples, A E
White, Sir D (Fareham)


Drewe, C
Marsden, Capt. A
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, S. H (Sutton)
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mellor, Sir J.
York. C.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr E L.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T



Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Rt Hon W S. (Cirencester)
Major Conant and


Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C. E
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[19TH ALLOCATED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947–48; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1947–48; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1947–48; AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1947–48, PROGRESS.

GERMANY AND AUSTRIA

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £53,473,794, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Germany and Austria for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, namely:—


Class II, Vote 1, Foreign Office
£2,060,864


Class X, Vote 7, Foreign Office (German Section) (formerly Control Office for Germany and Austria)
£51,412,930



£53,473,794"

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £117,117,400, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Education for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, namely:—


Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education
£91,185,535


Class VII, Vote 6, Public Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £225,275)
£25,931,865



£117,117,400"

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION

4.3 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): In introducing the Estimates for this year, I think I ought to ask for the indulgence of the Committee. This is the first time for close on two years that I have had the privilege of addressing the House, and I remember that on the last occasion I dropped a few bricks. I hope I may escape that today. The

Estimates with which we are dealing cover a total of £213 million, £138 million Exchequer payments, and £75 million expenditure incurred by and found by the local education authorities. I think it is always as well, in thinking in terms of educational expenditure, that we should remember that this is a co-operative effort, and that not only the State but the local education authorities must always play their part. In justifying this expenditure, one must naturally think in terms of what has been happening since the Vote was put down.
In everybody's mind, I think, the first big step in what I would call the implementation of the 1944 Act was the raising of the school leaving age this year. There was some honest doubt in the minds of some people whether we should have taken this step at this stage. Personally, I have never been in any doubt. I think from every point of view, and particularly from the economic point of view, which is so often stressed, it would have been a mistake not to do so this year. Having decided that it would be done, necessary preparations had to be made. First, it was realised that if we were to include in our school population this year the additional numbers who would be required to be catered for, we had to find somewhere to put them. So the H.O.R.S.A. programme was devised. I have been asked what H.O.R.S.A. means, and I must confess that at first I did not know the answer. Then I discovered that it was a sort of military term, and stands for "Huts Operation Raising School Age." It is not good English, not even basic English, but it means something to the people who have been carrying out this programme, and that is what matters. The huts that were thought to be needed were many in number and were required in many places.
The question has been put to me, "If you find it necessary to provide huts to accommodate these children, why not make a job of it, and erect permanent buildings instead?" The answer is that that was not a practicable proposition. The only way in which this accommodation could be provided was by this programme. In 1946 the local education authorities, with all the will and desire in the world, were able to spend only £1 million on permanent building. To make the necessary provision other than


by huts, by permanent buildings, would have cost £25 million. So we see at a glance that one proposition was practicable, and the other was not.
In defence of the huts, I would say that they are very good. When I was at a previous Ministry I had some responsibility for them, and was not then able to say just what I thought about the Minister of Works; it would have been unbecoming; but I think the Minister did a good job, and I think my right hon. Friend who is following in his footsteps is also doing a good job and that these are very good huts. From the standpoint of all that is essential in the way of amenity, they are far better than a good many schools which we will be compelled to use for quite a long time yet. The progress that is being made with the provision of these huts can be measured perhaps better by giving the figures as to the contracts which have been let, the work that has been started, and the number completed. The total number of huts required by September of this year is 3,440, and by the 26th of this month contracts had been let for 3,240, in other words, 96 per cent. Work has been started in the case of 75 per cent., and some 420, about 12 per cent., are actually completed at this date.
The huts themselves are no use unless there is something to put in them. Therefore another programme was devised, that we called S.F.O.R.S.A. This is another example of borrowing names from our military friends to meet a requirement. This relates to "School furniture operation for the raising of the school age" so that H.O.R.S.A. and S.F.O.R.S.A. provide the huts and the furniture to put in the huts. Again, I desire to say that everybody who has been interested in this, and everybody who has been connected with it, knew exactly what was meant by S.F.O.R.S.A., even though the Minister did not. Because of that, and in spite of what has appeared in the educational Press, although we did not get off the mark as quickly as we ought to have done in this matter, I not only have the assurance of the people responsible, but I have had it as late as last week, that the furniture required for September, 1947, will be there and available on the date. If it is suggested, as I see it suggested from another source, that we ought to have made materials available to the trade generally and have bought what they

were prepared to provide, in order to meet the requirements, I say that we should not. Not only would they not have provided the things we needed in the numbers we required them, but they would have been, as it were, in competition with the other forms of school furniture which are also needed, but which are not vitally essential to this particular programme.
Not only had we to take into account the provision of furniture, which is coming along, but also, at the same time while we were working on the two programmes of huts and furniture, we had to think in terms of what we call the operational programme. In this programme, we take into account not only the school leaving age, but provision for the new housing estates that will be required before the end of 1948. We decided that it was necessary to cut a good deal of red tape in order that the operational programme might make provision over and above that which could be supplied by huts between 1947 and 1948. We had also to devise a permanent building programme to meet the requirements of the new areas and the additions brought about by the raising of the school leaving age. Between January, 1946, and January, 1952, we have in addition to this, to take into account the effect of the increase in birth rate. Keeping in mind what our requirements were this year and will be next year, and the continuing requirements that will come as a result of the bulge in the birth rate, we have to make provision for an increase in the number of children, by 1952, of some 860,000, that is, the increase due to the increased birth rate and the raising of the school leaving age.
In the preparations we have made for the programme of permanent building, in the cutting of red tape and the seeking of ways and means of providing the new buildings for the new housing estates, and to meet the additional requirements, we have asked the local authorities not only to give us their plans, but to see that those plans are brought to fruition at the earliest date. In the first six months of this year we sanctioned expenditure and approved plans to a value of about £11¾ million. I have no doubt that, although we may find that we have not got completely all we require on what might be described as the appointed day in 1948, we shall have gone a long way towards smoothing out the difficulties and making


the provision which is necessary for this conception of the educational programme.
Arising out of, and in addition to this operational programme about which I have spoken, the question will be asked what we are doing in regard to those schools which are already in existence and which are in need of attention. I am now thinking in terms, not of the older schools but of the infant and junior schools, and I know that a good many of them are in need of improvement in respect of all the amenities. We have not forgotten this, and whatever can be done will be done to improve the amenities of these schools, which have to remain for a time until we can implement our bigger programme. The need for this is not being overlooked. We have 650 schemes in train—in our short-term programme—I mean those which will cost under the £5,000 level, and which received sanction at the Ministry without all the formalities having to be gone through of submitting plans and the rest of it. A good deal of painting, etc., is also being done, as are a good many minor jobs which do not figure in this programme. Much of the ordinary maintenance work is being carried out.
Having made provision for the buildings, what is the position with regard to teachers? I remember some four years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) was piloting the 1944 Act through the House of Commons, discussions were taking place as to whether it would be possible to implement that Act particularly in regard to the raising of the school age, because of our inability to provide teachers in time. Every one's mind was turned upon the importance of making this provision. It is due to the provision which was made by my predecessor—I do not want to claim any credit for it, because the credit goes elsewhere—and by those who advised him and to the coming into operation of the emergency training scheme that there is no question of our being short of teachers to implement this policy. I am delighted that it is so. The fact that in the difficult period since the passing of the Act—only a few short years—it has been possible to get together all the materials required in the building of these emergency colleges, and for the building up of the staffs, is a tribute to the education service

of this country. It is an achievement of which those who were its authors are entitled to be proud.
As one who has visited a number of these emergency training colleges, I can say that we may be proud of the material that has come forward from the Services. What are the numbers? It was stated that the men and women coming out of the Forces would not respond. They have responded, and in a way that no one, I believe, anticipated. We had no fewer than 100,000 applicants who desired to be trained as teachers. Forty thousand of them have been accepted. At the moment, we have open 48 emergency training colleges for ordinary training and three for technical training. From the emergency colleges, which provide for a one year course, the annual output is 11,600. Further, the annual output from those colleges which provide for a course of two years or more, is 10,500. What does this mean? It means that some people have come to the conclusion already that we are preparing teachers for unemployment. I want to dispel that idea. I want those students who have responded to the appeal to come forward for training to believe me when I say that the Government are determined that this particularly valuable material shall not be wasted, and that there are ways and means in which I believe—and I think that the local authorities agree—that the teachers we are training can be absorbed. I know of nothing which could disturb those who have come forward in such good numbers, and who have proved to be of such good quality, more than the fear that at the end of their training they might be unemployed. We have already taken steps to see that this situation should not arise.
Everybody knows that we have had more men than women. The men have come forward in much greater numbers. There are difficulties in regard to the proportions of men to women, but it should not be beyond the wit either of the Ministry or of local education authorities so to adjust the numbers as to put them in a different proportion and thus to overcome the difficulty. In the training colleges where we have taken what I would call an over-abundance of men, it is possible to make a re-adjustment in the next two years by opening some of the


emergency colleges for the full-time training of teachers and at the same time speeding up the training of the women applicants.

Mr. George Thomas: The Minister is not suggesting a reduction of any sort in the number of men to be trained?

Mr. Tomlinson: No. What I suggest is that, if it should be necessary, there should be a larger spreadover rather than that we should train all the men immediately and thus put the two out of balance. We should bring into proportion the number of men and women available. We have taken steps in consultation with local authorities to see what can be done in that direction.
This leads me to refer to one of the problems which has been discussed many times here. I myself raised the matter before I was a Minister. I refer to the problem of smaller classes. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and my hon. Friend the Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) on more than one occasion have stressed this point. If anybody can tell me any way in which we can get smaller classes other than by increasing the number of teachers, I am prepared to give in. I know that it has been suggested time and again that we were restricted in the number of teachers we could employ because the buildings were not available. I am not prepared to accept that argument. Never has it been the limiting factor in the past. Never has it been one of the determining factors m the staffing of our schools that the buildings were either too big or too small. I would ask those who say that it is a limiting factor whether it is easier for one individual to teach 50 children in one classroom, if it is possible in these conditions for teaching to be done? I do not suggest that this is an ideal solution, but if one teacher has not a chance, two, at least, would have a better chance if they did the teaching for half an hour at a time and then rested to get their breath. The point is that the buildings themselves ought not to be the limiting factor.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: What is the position of the black-listed schools? A very large number of schools were condemned as long ago as 1925 and they are still in use.

Mr. Tomlinson: That is true. There are a good many of them. My argument is that whether or not a school is blacklisted does not for one moment interfere with the ratio of the teachers who should be employed. In fact, additional teachers may be needed at a black-listed school because it has not got the amenities.
There are two problems which have become notorious in the last few weeks and it seems to me that we are in danger of getting them out of proportion. The first is in regard to science teachers. I know the fear in the minds of many people because the number of science teachers has not been as great as previously. I think that for the first time we have been so successful as educationists in convincing industry of the necessity for utilising educated persons, that industry has become our chief competitor. It may be that for a time we shall have difficulties in competition with industry but, judging by the numbers entering universities who have indicated that they intend to go into schools, I think the position will improve. In any case, I do not think that we are likely to get an improved position as a consequence of what I call "pressure groups" seeking to bring pressure to bear upon the Burn-ham Committee at a time when that committee is sitting, and the Minister himself, by Act of Parliament, is not permitted to influence the Burnham Committee. If it is "hands off" to the Minister, the same should apply to the "pressure groups."
I appreciate the difficulties with regard to teachers in infant schools. I am just as disturbed about the shortage of these teachers as I am about the shortage of science teachers. Unless we fill our infant schools and have teachers there, when the children come to be taught science they will not be able to take it in. We must begin with the infants. It is essential that we should attempt to improve matters in both directions. They can be improved not only by pointing out the need but by other methods. I have suggested to local education authorities that the girls who are awaiting entry into colleges this year—and there are something like 2,500 of them—might be taken into the schools as helpers in the meantime. Judging from our experience with the emergency training colleges, that time will not be wasted. The experience they will


gain will be worth while. As a result of the experience of the last six months, I am convinced that the value of the break between school and college, or college and school, cannot be over emphasised. I hope that local education authorities will consider this suggestion favourably. I have asked them to do that and, if necessary, I will plead with them. We cannot afford to lose the valuable material because of our inability to make provision at once.
May I now say a word about the development plans that have been coming forward and which are fundamental to the implementation of the 1944 Act. Complete plans have been submitted by 117 local education authorities, 48 counties and 69 county boroughs, instalments by another 10, nine counties and one county borough. There are 17 local education authorities which have not yet submitted any part of their plan, and the delay in these cases is due to special local difficulties such as area replanning, shortages of staff and consultations with voluntary schools and their representatives. What I want to emphasise is that they are not lying neglected on the Ministry's shelves. They are being looked at, and I want to tell the Committee that we are pressing these authorities in order that they may get on with their development plans. I want to examine them as quickly as possible, within the terms and the meaning of the Act, and to give what I would call an overall approval before the whole of the details have been settled. I know that, if an order is to be made, some of the details will have to be settled, but I do not want the local authority to feel that what might happen in 1947–48 is what happened in 1918–19, when plans were prepared which are still, in many instances, lying in the pigeon holes.
It is our intention, as it is the intention of the Act, to see that secondary education for all, which is inherent in the Act of Parliament, should become a reality when these development plans unfold themselves. I know what they want in their proposals for carrying out or implementing this policy, but they do envisage in the development plans the provision that we are asking for. I am looking for equal opportunity for all to develop the faculties with which all are endowed, and I would emphasise, as I have said on more than one occasion, that

we seek no reduction in the standard of the grammar school. A good deal of talk has been going on in different parts of the country with regard to the position of the grammar schools, and I want to emphasise that it is no part of our policy to reduce in any way the status or standing of the grammar schools. To the friends of the grammar schools, who are crying out loud sometimes, I would say, "Do not cry 'stinking fish'; otherwise, it may begin to stink. The value of your school is not determined by the position it occupies in relation to the other schools."
While I would emphasise the necessity for retaining the standard of the grammar schools, I also want to emphasise the necessity for the new secondary schools to come up to the same standard. I know the difficulties of new schools making their appeal to parents if we seek all the time to emphasise differences, and to look upon academics as the only form or the highest form, of development. The confidence of our people, if they are all of the same status, will be increased a thousandfold.
There is room and need in our secondary education for experiments. I have recently sent out a pamphlet trying to define the different types of schools which are being suggested under the development plans—the multilateral, the bilateral, the unilateral, the comprehensive and the school base. I would emphasise the necessity for all to speak the same language, when speaking about the multilateral, the unilateral or the comprehensive school. They should at least know what the Ministry means and is thinking about when issuing a circular of that kind. But whatever the need and the form of the school, it will not achieve its objective unless it has got one purpose—to give the child, whoever it may be, the best opportunity of developing to the full the faculties which it possesses That is our aim and object.
There are some five million children in our schools, a fairly large family, but amongst that family there are 75,000 handicapped children—only 1½ per cent. it is true, but I believe that this nation will be judged as much by what it does for the 1½ per cent. as by what it does for the 98½ per cent. Therefore, I am pleased to say that, in dealing with this


problem of the handicapped children in our specialist organisations and services, we have made some progress. During the past few months, one of my officers has been visiting different parts of the country getting the local authorities together in groups to consider their needs and to attempt to meet their needs on a co-operative basis. Every authority does not require special schools of that kind, but every authority has some children whom it could send and, therefore, in ascertaining the needs, it has been possible to assess the requirements of a wide area, and schemes are now being drawn up and submitted for joint approval making provision for these areas.
I had the privilege the other Saturday of visiting Oxted in Surrey, where the Moor House School has been established. There are only 30 children in this school, but it is the only thing of its kind, not only in this country, but in the world. This school is dealing with 30 children, 21 of whom are suffering the after effects either of an operation for cleft palate or for harelip. They are being taught to speak and they are making progress. In addition to these 21 children, there are nine aphasic children. I understand that there are only 40 in the country, and there are nine of them in this school. What the cause of this trouble is nobody has yet discovered. The children can hear and they have their faculties, but they cannot speak; language means nothing to them. At this school, in which these experiments are being carried out, speech therapists are being trained at the same time as the children are being taught. That is something of which I, when called upon to open this school, felt very proud. There was a child who, in eight weeks' time, had been taught, for the first time in its life, to say the names of the children among whom it was living and working in the school, and I can imagine something of the joy that will enter the home of that child in Wales when it goes back able to speak and make itself understood.
What we are doing in that school is pioneer work of a kind the value of which cannot be over-estimated, and I take off my hat to the individuals who have been responsible for it, who have spent a lot of their own money and given a great deal of their time as well as making real sacri-

fices, and who are now getting their reward by seeing these children restored.
The same thing is true in regard to spastic children—children who suffer from cerebral palsy. In Croydon, again, we have the only school in the world where these children are being dealt with. I can see that the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities is questioning that.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: On the contrary; I am very much interested in the subject, but as a good internationalist, I think it should be mentioned that some very good work is being done on it in America.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not anxious to boast about this. I checked up to see whether it was taking place anywhere else, and I thought it worth while to mention it. There are not many things in which we are leading, but I think that this is the most important thing of all. If we are leading in any degree in the treatment of children whose needs are greater than those of the average child, I think that we have reason to be proud of the fact. All I want to say is that those responsible for the development of these experiments are entitled, not only to all the credit, but to the thanks of the nation for what they are doing in this direction.
There has been a good deal of talk in the, last few months about our milk-in-schools scheme. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting a school in Liverpool where 30 children of about 4½ years of age were lined up waiting for milk. They got their milk, and within three minutes they were lined up with the mugs waiting to hand them back. I wondered at the time whether the Member who asked me in this House what we did with the milk which was left over, had ever visited this school. I do not think that we should be bothered answering questions of that kind if more people visited that school. I only say that because I am just as anxious as any other hon. Member to prevent waste. In all my inquiries with regard to the milk-in-schools scheme, I have found that if, by any chance, there is a child who does not need it or does not want it, some other child gets a double quantity. I do not think that there is any hon. Member who would object to another child drinking it rather than have it


wasted. The rise in the number of children taking milk in schools has been pretty remarkable. In June, 1946, the number was 3,370,000, or 72 per cent.; in June, 1947, when it was free, the number was 4,300,000, or 92 per cent. In answer to suggestions that have sometimes been made that there is the possibility of harm coming to children from drinking unclean milk, I would say that 94 per cent. of all milk given in schools is either heat-treated 01 tuberculin-tested.
With regard to meals in schools—another question upon which there have been a good many inquiries—I can tell the House that about 50 per cent. of the children to day are receiving such meals. If we have not been able to make the progress which we wanted to make, and are anxious to make, with regard to bringing that 50 per cent. up to 100 per cent., it is simply because we have put the provision of huts, in preparation for the raising of the school-leaving age, before the feeding of children. In view of the difficulties which have been experienced with regard to the shortage of materials, implements, and all the rest of it, I Would like to pay a tribute to the Department responsible for the progress that has been made.
I will now come to the question of further education, and by "further education" I mean what the Act says, which is:
(a) a full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age; and
(b) leisure-time occupation, in such organized cultural training and recreative activities as are suited to their requirements, for any persons over compulsory school age who are able and willing to profit by the facilities provided for that purpose.
I want to pay a tribute to those responsible for introducing that provision into the Education Act, 1944. This is the first time that further education has been imposed as a duty upon local authorities. In the past, it has been a pleasure, and one that was either accepted or not according to the temperament of the members of the local education authorities. Now, for the first time, it is a duty, and it is a duty that is being tackled. I need not emphasise the importance of technical education today, or of any spread of it through further education, which is essential. If all that is said about the economic situation is true, then it seems

to me that, purely from an economic point of view, an increase in technical education is a first necessity. This is also being realised by other people. The numbers being released from work on a voluntary basis today, compared with the numbers before the war, are, although not yet too great, rather remarkable. In 1936 and 1937, there were 36,000; in 1947, there are 127,000. That is only four times as many and it is not yet enough, but it is an indication of a realisation of the value of further education from the standpoint of the employer.
As hon. Members know, we have been setting up regional councils all over the country, in order that further education might be properly organised. We have in mind the setting up of a national council, as envisaged by the Percy Report. If the working party set up to advise on the constitution of this national council is going to give it a representative character, with all the administrative interests of the country represented on it, then, every time a meeting is held, it will have to take place in the Albert Hall. I do not think that is the way that we shall get any work done. I want to be sure that the working party finds the best way in which this conception of a national council for technical education can be brought into being.
With regard to evening classes and then value, I do not think I need speak at any length about them. We have all experienced their value. But I think there is something to be said for the students coming fresh to the classes on at least one day a week, and for their being released from work in order to do that. In the planning of further education and county colleges this year and next, and in asking the local authorities to do that, I have in mind that, while at the moment they are occupied with their development plans, it is essential that they should be thinking in terms of the requirements of further education and county colleges, so that when the material and the manpower situation improves, they will be able to go ahead with what is necessary in this direction. Meantime, we are going ahead with the provision of technical teachers and instructors.
In this connection, may I say that industry has a contribution to make towards what we are seeking to do? It can make a contribution by helping in the re-equipment of our technical schools and


colleges. When a technician is compelled to work with out-of-date tools, he is not nearly as much value to his employer, who is already engaging his operatives on other types of machinery. Therefore, the necessity for bringing the equipment up to date is obvious. Here may I publicly thank Messrs. Courtaulds for having provided, in connection with their own industry, equipment in the colleges to the tune of £149,000. That is a lead which might well be followed by other far-seeing and intelligent boards of directors. The expenditure of this sum of £149,000 is a good investment for the future, in that it will enable the students, as a result of their training, to give something worth while to the industry. Another way in which industry can assist is by releasing industrialists to give instruction.
I have a lot of confidence in the part-time teacher in technical education. In my young days I had the privilege of attending a technical college at a little place called Accrington, where the pupils were taught the theory of the work which they had to do during the day, and it was of inestimable value. We have all heard of "tatlers' tales"; I have no time to tell any tatlers' tales, but I do know that the tatler, as he is called, or the overlooker in the weaving shed, can be of invaluable assistance in the technical colleges when it comes to teaching. I ask industry, not only in Lancashire but all over the country, to recognise that it has a part to play in further education. But I do not want employers to think only in terms of technical education as it affects their own industry. If further education is to be of value, it must be a liberal education, and not confined to technicians and technicalities. It must be broad in its scope. I remember on one occasion many years ago, when I was working in a mill, I had forgotten the looms that were all round me, and was reading. The overlooker came round, tapped me on the shoulder and said, "What are you doing?" I said, "I was just playing Hamlet." I had a threepenny copy of Shakespeare's "Hamlet"; there was no paper shortage in those days. The overlooker brought me to my senses by saying, "Now I am going to play Hamlet," and he did.
Why should it be thought wrong for the working man to be interested in the best literature? Why should it be re-

garded as outside his sphere? We must get away from that attitude. I want the factory worker to be interested in literature, music and the arts. I want a scheme of education embracing technical and other spheres which will give the person engaged in industry an opportunity of utilising such knowledge for his own advancement. If we are moving into an age in which tasks become more monotonous because of the constant inroad of mechanisation, the necessity for thorough training applies not only to a man's technical skill but also to his thoughts while he is doing the monotonous job. If we want an alternative to the football pools, we should fill people's minds with something worth thinking about, and then perhaps they would not waste so much time thinking about pools. From the point of view of the development of further education, the life of the nation can, will and ought to be enriched, for I hold the view that just as the individual dies when he ceases to learn, so does the nation.
I have no time to refer to all the details I wished to talk about, but I would say, with regard to university facilities and the scheme for providing further education so that a man who has spent a period in the Army may resume his studies, that up to date 40,000 awards have been made, and 40,000 individuals are continuing their education under the scheme. I do not know whether one can make comparisons, but in comparison with what took place after the last war, there are already about 15,000 more awards and 15,000 more individuals coming to the universities as a consequence of this scheme. Although we did run into trouble in the early days of the scheme with regard to providing the grants at the right time, we have now reached the stage where we are receiving testimonials. A short time ago the National Union of Students wrote to me:
I am directed by the above Committee to write to you on behalf of all the ex-Service students to convey to you and your staff their appreciation of the very prompt payments of grants at the beginning of this term.
The original of that letter can be seen in the Ministry. I have no time to deal with the plans which have been made for continuing the education of people when they finish their National Service. When this scheme of further education comes to an end something in the nature


of a permanent scheme must take its place, not only for the implementation of the principles of State scholarships but to provide opportunities for those who have spent some time in National Service.
I would like to say a few words on the subject of visual aids, and the great contribution that can be made by the cinema and other forms of visual aids in the classroom. Committees have been established, both on the production side and on the consumers' side, the Ministry and the local authorities, so that we shall be able to ensure that we shall obtain the films which we require for our purpose.

Mr. Cove: Educational films?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes. I would add that U.N.E.S.C.O. is doing a practical job. I appreciate that all international organisations take time to become established. U.N.E.S.C.O. has now become established and is getting down to work, and I do not think anybody would deny that this country must play its full part.
I would also have liked to say something about the new grant formula, but that is at present under discussion. While the discussions are going on, we have in mind the necessity for seeking a simple formula so that even the Minister can understand it—and it would be the first time—with the purpose of ensuring that even the poorest authority will be able to carry out the provisions of the Act. The purpose behind the Estimates, and, indeed, behind education, is to provide equality of opportunity—opportunity to develop to the full the faculties of every child, irrespective of his walk in life.
I do not want to underestimate the economic value of education. At this time, especially, it would be foolish to suggest that education has not a contribution to make to our economic recovery, by means of productivity. I believe it has. Nor do I want to suggest it should be the means whereby an individual can obtain a better job in life—even becoming a Member of Parliament. What I do say is that these things, valuable though they may be, are not fundamental. The one purpose—and the primary purpose—of education is to develop to the full the faculties of the child in order that he may be of service to the community and able to live a full

free and useful life. Education to enrich life is, I believe, of vital importance.
I have not said anything in the course of these remarks about religious teaching in schools because I believe that religious teaching is not something which is only to be had in the schools at certain times; I believe it has to run through the whole of the child's education, and can be got just as much on the playing fields as in the classrooms. But unless all these schemes we have put forward and all these things we have provided lead at the same time to a development of character, then they are useless. For it is not so much the content of education that determines in the long run what is going to happen; what is going to happen is determined by the use to which the knowledge and the education are put. Therefore, I place first the development of character. I believe all these other things can assist in every walk of life in the development of character The poet said:
Be good, sweet maid and let who wilt be clever.
I do not like this idea that dullness and goodness go together. I believe it is possible to be clever and to be good, and I do not believe it is of much good to be clever unless one is also good.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sure the Committee would like me to express our gratitude to the Minister for his review of the position. He conducted it in the style we associate with him, and we are grateful to him for that. He said at the beginning of his speech that he hoped he would not drop any bricks, and I can assure him that he has managed to avoid doing so; but, if he is looking for a few bricks to pick up, let me refer him to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who stated in the Debate on 28th July—only three days ago——
We are having to close down in certain bricykards because they cannot get orders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1947; Vol 441. c. 89.]
My advice to the Minister is to make immediate application to the Minister of Health to obtain some bricks, and to build a few more buildings, and all of us in the world of education will be extremely grateful to him. I think there is a moral


in that illustration, because if there are brickyards closing down because they cannot get orders, surely we in the world of education should be the first to have a chance to use those bricks which are available.
The 1944 Act was an act of faith. At the time, those of us who were responsible for it—and we were a very large team, including the right hon. Gentleman who is at present His Majesty's Home Secretary—realised that it was an act of faith. We realised, I think, the history that had followed upon the 1918 Act; we realised the lags in the education services that were bound to occur after the war; and I think we all realised the economic difficulties which would follow the war period. It has been satisfactory to the world of education that we have retained a certain priority in the midst of the extreme difficulties which the country has been facing. Certain actions have been taken which have illustrated that we in the world of education still command a great deal of public notice, and that the subject to which we are devoted is still in the forefront of people's minds.
But I must say that we are now facing a far greater economic storm than even the language of the Minister of Education revealed to the Committee today; and we are facing what is going to be a great crisis of postwar education in the immediate future. Nothing that I say today will be designed to make the task of those responsible, in the authorities or in the Ministry, more difficult; but I must put it to them that unless they grip essentials, and have hard and certain priorities, and unless the Minister can obtain from his own Government the priorities he and his subject deserve, the country must be made aware that we cannot carry out all these essential reforms as quickly as we should like. I think there are bound to be disappointments. I must say that, because I was so largely responsible for the reforms. I can only hope that the Government will bring to this matter in the months that lie immediately ahead some of the energy and drive which they have used in changing the economic order. I hope they will do that. I think it will be done only by sticking to essentials.
That is why I ask the Government to devote their utmost attention to the administrative problem of actually

running the Department, in conjunction with the authorities—getting buildings up and getting teachers into the right places. That is why I am not going to say anything today about the projects which are near my heart, such as U.N.E.S.C.O. or other matters, because I do not believe that energy should be diverted at the present moment to any channel other than that of actually making the educational machine work and providing as many opportunities as possible for the children. The Minister himself, at the end of his remarks, mentioned U.N.E.S.C.O. I would only say that with the shortage of clerical assistance I now have, and the shortage of transport, I was unable to bring with me all the documents sent me from the U.N.E.S.C.O. offices, and from their representatives in London. In fact, I have not even been able so far to go through all of them. The remarkable fact is that they contain far more sense than I imagined they would when I first started perusing them. I am obliged to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to serve on the National Committee. But even in that international venture let us stick to the simple points people can understand, and then the real worth of the venture will become more readily appreciable to our own citizens and to this Committee. Meanwhile, I wish those responsible for it well, in pursuing their work and in clarifying their objects.
The Minister concluded with some remarks with which I am entirely in agreement—that character is the essential need in the content of what is taught. I appeal to him to link education, as I believe he would like to do, with the practical side of living in this country. There are two aspects—one of which he mentioned, and the other of which I will mention—of that linking, to which I want to refer. First, I am convinced that in this country there is an immense body of people who are devoted to the cause of education. What in America, where I have just been, would be described as the "education lobby" is a very large one. Those who are devoting their lives to education, whether as administrators, teachers, parents, whoever they may be, cherish the ideal which was, I think, born in the period when we were passing the 1944 Act, that we should create in England a system of education which, for the first time in the history of the world,


would prove that a mass system was a possibility and could be a working success. That has never yet been proved, and it is up to our small country to prove it. Unless we can prove it, I do not believe that Britain's social experiment, in which so many of us on both sides of the Committee are involved, can possibly succeed. Therefore, on the psychological and the social side, I consider education is the most important matter in England today.
The second aspect was referred to by the Minister. It is the practical contribution that education can make to our economic recovery. I claim—and, I believe, without the possibility of contradiction—that many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and certainly many of my own, and many on all sides who are not here today swelling our ranks, may feel that a day on education is a convenient occasion for some to spout their views and enjoy themselves on their own pet subject. But, in fact, do they realise that the educative process lies at the very basis of our recovery or non-recovery from the present crisis, and that unless we encourage skills in the industries, we cannot possibly produce those products which will make our balance of payments a great deal healthier than it is at the present time? In industry generally, I believe that skills will be the absolute test of whether or not Britain resumes her proud industrial position in the world. Therefore, I believe that our subject, far from being an academic subject, is the most practical in the world, and absolutely vital to present discussions on the economic crisis. I think it is socially, psychologically and practically imperative that the Minister should retain a large degree of priority in his work.
I do not want to apply a sort of machine-made generalisation to the content of education itself, for I do not believe the Minister did. Recently I met an economic planner—I hasten to say he was not the chief planner—who said to me: One value I can see in your education "—of which he obviously had a very low opinion—" is that you can gradually produce in the schools children who are planning conscious, who will themselves be so accustomed to linking each other's lives together that they will never be sundered as they

leave the schools. Thus, our children can start planning from the schools themselves." That is exactly contrary to the view which we on this side of the Committee hold, and which is, I trust, held throughout the ranks of the Committee this afternoon. The vital thing is to produce individual character in children. If children are strong enough they will survive even the operations of economic planners, and, as a result, they may in the end even produce a good plan. But if they are not strong, they will never coalesce and form a team out of which we can build the unity of this country and ensure its success in the years to come.
What the Minister said in the concluding part of his speech was once summed up by Matthew Arnold in the words: "In education information is really the least part." If that be the case, let us concentrate, as far as we can in our present difficulties, on the right content in the schools. In this connection I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to what extent His Majesty's Inspectorate has been enlarged; to what extent its terms of employment have been improved; and to what extent its inspectors are at present able to visit schools, revert to their proper duty, and report on the content? I do not believe that the inspectorate is an ideal piece of machinery for use as a sort of delegated administration from Whitehall. Although through out the war years, inspectors, with great agility, and sometimes great concealment of their incapacity to do the job, undertook tasks which were quite unknown to them—such as the fixing of stove pipes and similar matters—I do not believe they were chosen for that purpose. Their object is to go into the schools, to help the teachers, and to present reports to the Minister so that the content of education can be improved the country over.
While I am dealing with the content, let me deal also with the physical welfare of the children. The Minister referred to the meals and milk service. My information, from what I can pick up from authorities, is that there has been a slight recession in the milk consumption since the maximum figure which the Minister quoted. If that be the case, I should like confirmation of it. There are also considerable advances to be made in the provision of meals. I believe there are


some 25 authorities feeding less than 30 per cent. of their pupils at the present time, 73 authorities feeding between 30 and 50 per cent., and six or seven who have reached the 70 per cent. level. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the priority given to school meals and milk by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor will be maintained, because in the difficulties we shall encounter in the next few months we shall have a position similar to that which I had to face during the war. If we can get the right priorities from the Minister of Food, it is certain that the children will get at least their midday meal at school and not have to eat their fathers' or mothers' rations. That will be just as important in the months that lie ahead of us as it was during wartime.
I now want to touch, quite briefly, on the different types of school and on the development plans. Just as I hope the Minister will chase up those authorities who have not had great success over their meals plan, so I hope he will also produce from the 17 local education authorities the development plans, of which a draft has been submitted, without undue delay. There are only one or two things which strike me as being possibly wrong in the development plans—which again I have had to obtain by hearsay from the authorities. First, it appears that certain authorities have gone rather mad on the multilateral idea, and have decided that something in the nature of factory schools must be established with an indefinite number of pupils. I want to make clear that I am not against the multilateral principle as an educational principle. Many of the best schools in this country have, for some years, been multilateral, until their discovery by the official side. Therefore, when the multilateral principle is put into force and approved in plans by the Ministry, I hope that it will be approved in cases where the school is able to retain a life and a personality of its own, with a contact between teachers and taught.
I am not against the large school in itself, but I am in favour of the retention of as many small schools as possible. I am not in favour, and I do not think any hon. Member on this side of the Committee is in favour, of the retention of, for example, small, disused, unhealthy village one-teacher schools. I do not want to stand for that. So in what I want to

say now about the Church schools I hope the Committee will be patient with me, because there are two technical matters to which I want to refer. As the Committee probably realise, the negotiation of what was known as the religious settlement took a very long time—some two or two and a half years—and I hope that it has, in the end, done away with one of the most grievous religious and political subjects in our public life. If that be the case, I am most anxious to see it working in the way its authors intended, and I want to draw attention to two difficulties which have arisen in regard to what I call the religious settlement.
The first arises through the development plan. There are certain county authorities who have decided not to include in their development plan a large number of Church schools. They have decided this, I believe, under the fear of economic difficulty, because of teacher supply, access to buildings, and so forth. Some of them may have done it from prejudice, but I am not claiming that in every case, or in very many cases. Whatever be the reason, the fact is that if a large proportion of the two-teacher and bigger Church schools are not included in the development plan at all, the whole object of the religious settlement, which was to give to these schools the option between aided and controlled status, is removed at birth, and a sort of massacre of the innocents takes place. Here, I do not want to deny a word of the settlement—and I believe the controlled status was one of the great discoveries of the Act—nor do I want to stop the small schools to which I have referred, which we never thought should be stopped. I merely want to appeal to the Minister, when he is examining the development plans of county authorities which have decided to mutilate at birth the old option of Church schools, to give proper consideration to the retention of such voluntary schools as he thinks are sound and suitable for their district, and then to give them the option which we intended under what I have described as the religious settlement. To the managers and governors I say that I hope they will take the opportunity, under the requisite Section of the Act, of making their case known now, throughout the length and breadth of the country, so that a fair decision may be reached by the Ministry.
Secondly, the Anglican community, at any rate, is very distressed about something in the Act, for which I must accept full responsibility, namely, the need for voluntary schools to opt between aided and controlled status within a six months' period after the approval of the development plan. That puts the managers and the community in a very difficult position, because, although it is quite clear that with the priority already given to building by the Government, these schools cannot be altered or rebuilt, or new schools provided, for many years ahead, this choice has to be made now, when there is no certainty what the building costs will be 10 or 15 years ahead. I know the difficulties of amending legislation, but if there were any such suggestion, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would receive very sympathetic consideration from Members on this side, and that we should endeavour to bring to bear on any suggestion made, the attention it deserved, in the spirit in which most of us approached the religious question during the discussions on the Act.
I want to refer next to the plight of the primary schools. Sometimes I think that many of us are apt to spend too much time on the magic formula of a free secondary education for all, and to forget that a real crisis is arising in our primary schools, apparently because the Minister has recruited some four men teachers to each woman teacher. I do not believe many of these gallant male recruits to the teaching profession will be particularly useful in the primary sphere, or that women in the secondary sphere will want to go back to primary status. There seems a real danger of shortage among women teachers, and a real danger of crisis in our primary schools. There was one phrase in the Minister's speech which I think was too optimistic. He said that there was no question of a shortage of teachers preventing the carrying out of the Act as a whole. I believe that for some years ahead the Minister will have considerable difficulty, and I should like a further reply on what views the Interim Committee have about the bigger recruitment of women teachers, and the possibility of setting aside some of the existing colleges for girls waiting to do their two years' course, and taking active steps to

recruit more women for the teaching profession.
For goodness sake do not lose any of the men, because there are plenty of jobs for them all. When looking at the size of classes, we realise how many teachers are required, and that the Minister has a great problem to solve in this connection. I am informed—and these are optimistic figures—that there are still over 2,000 classes of over 50, and nearly 3,000 with more than 40 pupils over 11. I know of many cases, especially in some of our great cities, where classes are so large that the fundamental educational conception of the relationship between teacher and taught simply does not exist. Until we can get over that, we shall never have real educational reform.
The last point about primary schools is this. I have been informed by primary school teachers that some rather startling literature is apt to be circulated in these schools. I do not want to give the name of the periodical I have in my hand, because one is rather nervous at the moment about any contacts with these matters; nor do I want to give this document any spurious publicity. I notice it claims on the outside to have educational features, but inside I can find only an extreme precocity in the art of love-making and other such activities, which seem to me to be rather unsuitable for children of seven. At a time when the newsprint question is so serious, the right hon. Gentleman might examine whether schoolbooks might not have more paper, and some of these documents, however cheerful—I do not want to spoil the fun—a little less paper.
In the secondary sphere, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions on a danger which is arising, namely, that of administrative interference in the lives of some of our aided schools. It was always the intention under the Act—and I am reading from the White Paper—that aided secondary schools should be:
ensured, under the Act of an independence hardly, if at all, less than they enjoy at present.
Under the articles of government as they have been considered, amended or approved, I must confess that certain authorities, and notably the L.C.C., seem to us to be interpreting these sentiments in a way not intended at the time. We do not feel it is right to reduce the governing bodies virtually to a state of im-


potence, with the payment of teachers' salaries being made from the central office, with school supplies being obtained centrally, taking away the initiative from the teachers and governing bodies, and with holidays being regulated from the central office. I appeal, therefore, for some assurance that liberty will be left to these aided schools in their struggle to preserve a real school life for themselves.
On the subject of the Burnham Award, I agree that it would be unwise, while it is sub judice, for us to press the matter. Those who have been speaking about the difficulties of staffing secondary schools should realise that the salary scale is not the only difficulty they have to face. I am convinced that there is a great leakage of teachers into industry with its higher rewards, particularly in the realms of science. Let us take at its face value the statement of the Minister that he is offering encouragement to the grammar schools. Academic excellence is at the basis of all good education. It is by no means the only education, as the Minister said, but it is vital if you are to develop your brain to the best of its ability and encourage the highest standards among all the pupils. That has been the tradition of the grammar schools, and I confidently hope that when the Burnham Committee reports, we may find that grammar schools especially will be able to recruit their staff more easily.
On building, I wish to say this. I was responsible for approving the building regulations, but in my opinion some of these regulations are too severe in present times and in the present emergency. I notice that at least one major authority has made representations on this subject in a published statement. I hope it may be possible for the Minister to re-examine the standards laid down, not with a view to letting shoddy and second-class buildings pass through, but with the view to showing a little commonsense about the use of certain classrooms existing at present, not built to those standards we laid down. I was not particularly anxious at the time to reduce the standard of the building regulations, because I realised they formed part and parcel of the general understanding with the religious denominations. Even those who have to administer the Act, and those who are most keen to see the regulations as stiff as possible, are now making representations to the Minister that a little

more common sense is necessary. Therefore, as I have stood in a white sheet, I hope the Minister will pay attention to this matter, and enable buildings to be passed which, on grounds of common sense, are healthy and proper for schoolchildren.
The Minister made some interesting and valuable remarks on the subject of relationship between school and work. He referred to the efforts of certain industries to help, and I should like to say—having had some contact with education in industry as an occupation in leisure moments, and having done my best to encourage it—that I have been extremely gratified by the spirit which prevails in industry on the subject of education. There is hardly a big firm which has not appointed an education officer and started an education department. That all the big firms know where they are going I would not like to say, because it is difficult to know where all this will lead. But in the economic crisis we are now facing I believe that the Minister can get some first-class assistance from industry. I would not, however, like him to be inspired by some of the language in this pink document I have here, which is entitled "School and Life." In it there is this curious piece of English:
The object of education is men and women, industry aims at producing coal and textiles breakfast cereals and cinema films, newspapers and cosmetics, and other economic goods. In industry the worker is part of a process ending in goods; in education he is an end in himself This means that industrial organisation, of which a worker forms a part, will not be concerned with the claims of the whole man, which education develops, and it would be surprising if industry could ever supply a full education.
Leaving aside that somewhat staccato English, I do not agree with these sentiments. I think it would be wrong for anybody connected with industry, whether nationalised or private enterprise, to regard men or women, or adolescents in industry, as not being whole. I think we must bring education and industry much closer together, and not have in the minds of educationists the sort of idea that anything organised anywhere near a works is something wicked which bloated capitalists will exploit for their own ends. Most industries I have had contact with would be ready, if only there were enough Government inspectors of schools, to put the whole of the content of any schools they might undertake under the control of


those inspectors. They also wish that the teachers should come from the general teachers' pool. I believe that you have here a partner who will become invaluable in the years to come. Make sure that the motives are right, and that there are the right controls, and I am convinced that here is an opportunity of carrying out part of the objects of the Education Act.
I agree, however, with the latter portion of the document from which I have just quoted, which says:
Works' schools are no actual substitute for county colleges.
A lot of us have been trying to release young people and give them an opportunity of starting the continuation idea before the Government introduce their national scheme, and I hope that those schemes which have been started in industry will be encouraged. Remember that Fisher in his Act included the same provisions as we put into the 1944 Act. They broke down because some districts were allowed to start, and others lagged behind. We cannot face the shame, however great the economic crisis might be, of letting the continuation portion of this Act break down again. Let us use every device for starting it off. If the crisis is too difficult to enable us to provide immediate buildings, let us use every device and every element of compromise to get children used to the idea of proper daytime release. In this connection, I was glad to hear from the Minister of the 127,000 releases which are taking place.
I want to stress, finally, what I said at the beginning, the importance of associating educationists, education, and school with everyday working life. This can happen in the case of nursery schools, to which women will be only too glad to have the chance of sending their children so that they can have leisure time for themselves. It will happen in all other spheres, the adult sphere, the further educational sphere, some of the colleges which are beginning to be opened for adult education, and further education generally. We shall get Lilliputian links between school, further education, and life. The success of the Act depends upon how closely these links with life become. If education remains remote academic exercises, it will go down. If it becomes a practical inspiration in our national life, then educationists will lead

the country. It is the only great activity in which these words can be used,
It scattereth, yet increases,
and that is the thought we ought to have in our minds.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Dryden Brook: I want to confine myself to a rather limited field in this Debate. The Minister touched briefly on what must be looked upon as the coping stone of our educational system—boys and girls who have passed through primary and secondary schools, and are capable of going forward to university education—and I want to refer to the provision which is made, and which should be made, for that group of children. As a background to what I have to say I can refer to what both the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) have said about the importance, in the present economic crisis, of having at our disposal, in research departments of industry, and in industry generally, the greatest amount of scientific knowledge we can possibly bring to bear. But I would be the last person to think that all our university education should be devoted to the acquisition of scientific knowledge. I would agree that in the present enormous amount of concentration on technical and scientific education generally, we are tending to lose sight of the importance of the arts in relation to the whole problem of education. I want to try to link together the relationship between university education and the complete life of our people. If we are asked: Is there a wider field of choice for entry into our universities than has hitherto been looked upon as being the case, we have only to refer to the report of the Barlow Committee, which says:
There is only one in five of the ablest boys and girls actually reaching the universities. There is, clearly, an ample reserve of intelligence in the country to allow double the university numbers and, at the same time, raise the standard.
If other argument is necessary as to the means of the provision in this sphere, I think we can look at the 1944 Act.
If we are to complete the broad highway of educational opportunities which that Act envisages, the logical conclusion is that university education must be free to all who are capable of profiting from it. If we look at the position as it exists today and the latest statement of


the Minister, we see provision for 750 State scholarships which provide for full maintenance on a means-test basis. Accompanying that, we have provision for 100 technical scholarships and 20 matured scholarships. We have approximately, 1,200 university awards, supplemented in many cases by the State. We have 1,500 to 2,000 major scholarships provided by local education authorities, and we have approximately 2,000 teacher training grants made by the Minister. On top of that, there is the temporary wartime provision under the Further Education and Training scheme under which, I believe, there are this year some 14,000 grants, which also make provision for full maintenance and for wives and children; and there are 1,000 State bursaries. Under the decision of the Minister the last two categories will finish this year, and it is incumbent upon this Committee and upon the Ministry to formulate a permanent policy to take the place of what is disappearing this year.
The first thing one notices about the provisions I have mentioned is a lack of co-ordination, differing standards, and different provisions by the local education authorities, by the fact that the local education authorities do not all take full consideration of the ministerial exhortation. I happen to be still a member of a local education authority in a town with some 90,000 inhabitants. We have at present under the scheme submitted by the Ministry, 47 students actually at the universities. I tried to do a simple sum, and I found that if that provision were made throughout the country on the same basis by the local education authorities they would be providing between two and three times the number of scholarships which they are providing at the present time.
That means that we are making provision for some 5,000 or 6,000 students, independent of the scheme for Further Education and Training and the State bursaries. Of an approximate entry into the universities of roughly 20,000, and that entry should be doubled in ten years time provided we take notice of the recommendation of the Barlow Committee. Of that 5,000 or 6,000, some 2,000 are in respect of teacher training grants. It is obvious that there must be a large increase, and that there must be

co-ordination and elimination of the anomalies that exist.
To name one of these anomalies, under the means test for a major scholarship, either through the Minister or through the local education authority, the parents' responsibility does not begin until the income is £600 a year; whereas under the teachers' training scheme the responsibility begins at £300 a year. Therefore, we have the anomaly, from the beginning, that whereas a parent with an income of £600 a year and a major scholarship will pay nothing, the parents with an income of £600 a year will be called upon to pay £35 a year under the teachers' training scheme. Anomalies exist in respect of the cost of maintenance. The day student, man or woman, at the London University is assessed for maintenance at £100 a year. The day student at a London or any other training college is assessed for maintenance at £60 a year or a woman at £48 a year. There we have brought in sex distinction. For the first time, we have the amazing anomaly that the cost of maintenance of a day student at a training college is less than half the cost of maintenance at the London or provincial universities.

Professor Gruffydd: Is it not the case that these are in training hostels and therefore the cost is less?

Mr. Dryden Brook: If a student at the university is in a hostel, the provision for maintenance is assessed at £185 a year for London and £160 a year for the provinces, so that the question put by the hon. Gentleman does not really arise. The boarding at training colleges is assessed by the Ministry at £100 a year. In putting forward his new scheme of scholarships, the Minister provides in paragraph 2 of Circular 137 that in order to provide a more even distribution of State scholars arrangements will be made for allocating to each university or university college a quota of State scholars. There is the possibility of escaping that provision because the student will be able to switch from being a State scholar to being a London education authority scholar without suffering financial embarrassment. At the present time, the local education scholarship is exactly on


the same basis as the State scholarship from the point of view of maintenance, if the local education authority is implementing to the full the scheme put forward by the Minister. If this happens there is a switch of financial responsibility from the Minister to the local education authority.
As to the future, my own opinion is that no one entitled to enter a university on merit should be debarred on financial grounds from doing so, and if we estimate, as in all probability some people will estimate at the present time, that the means in the exchequer are limited, then my own feeling would be to offer assistance to a maximum number of students on a need basis rather than to abolish entirely university fees or to remove the income limit. The latter method would assist the wealthier student at the expense of the poorer student. In respect of entry through the education and training scheme, as the Minister's statement lays down, entry to a university will establish a qualification for grant. That must have some application in respect of the general entry into the university later on. If that is accepted, the system should, in my judgment, be based on meeting the fees, the cost of books and equipment and maintenance on 52 weeks a year basis and not on the number of weeks the student is at the university, and travelling expenses and assistance should be at the disposal of all students who reach a recognised standard. That is not the case at the present time.
The Barlow Report states that on the basis of measured intelligence, 80 per cent. of the university population should be ex-elementary school and 20 per cent. from other sources. At the present time, the disposition is under 50 per cent. from the elementary schools and 50 per cent from other sources. That shows we are wasting capacity in children coming from the elementary schools. If I were asked what should be the pattern for the future, it seems to me that there are three main factors—first university scholarships which are at the disposal at the present time of university authorities because of invested funds; second, the local education authorities' scholarship, many of which are based on full maintenance and payment on a means test basis; third, the State award. The complexity in my mind is as to which

of the second or third should be the residuary legatee in respect of the issue of scholarships in the future
The standards which we have at the present time vary in respect of local education authority scholarships. Many local education authorities base their awards on the higher school certificate in relation to which there are various tests as to what standard in that certificate a boy or girl reaches. In my own authority in Halifax the two "goods" standard is the basis and on that basis that education authority is prepared to grant a major scholarship, but other authorities have the pass standard, which is a lower standard. I think the two "goods" standard is high, and in justification for that I will give an example which happened in my own Committee. The Committee were deciding whether a youth who had gone from Halifax to a medical course and who had not reached the required standard should be awarded a major scholarship. He had not reached that standard, but in the first year he was top of the class in respect of the work done during the whole of the year.
There is the question of what is the standard to be fixed. The State scholarship is on a higher grade than the local authority, and we have been told that the Minister at the present time is carrying out an inquiry about the whole business of external examination, and into that inquiry will come that higher school certificate. My own suggestion would be to make one examination common to all which would suit the standard both for entering a university and for a scholarship whether State or local authority. We should do away with the distinction between the local education authority scholarship and the State scholarship, because the same financial value is attached to both and the student can go on a State scholarship or on a local authority scholarship to the same university and in the same way. Thus the Minister would have a common standard and a common measure for all local education authorities. He would be able to go to local education authorities and say that all those who have reached this standard were fit to go forward to a university and benefit by the education which is given there, and the community itself cannot afford that they should miss that opportunity, for if they miss that opportunity then we miss potential value


in regard to our industrial and social problems and our problems of life as a whole. Therefore, we consider that the local education authority must face their responsibilities and accept them by providing the means whereby this boy or girl is enabled to go forward and complete an educational career.
If the Minister is going to accept that suggestion it does bring into very bold relief the problem I mentioned a moment or two ago about the finances behind local education authorities. It does relate to the financial position and it makes the problem of the revision of the grant formula more urgent than ever. Such a revision should make for more equitable division of the cost as between national and local education the responsibility of which is of first rate importance. The present rate burden, I am given to understand, is that which was previously fixed by the Minister as being probable in the seventh year of the new educational development, and yet we are only in the initial stages of that development. The capacity to pay is an increasing burden and varies from one local education authority to another. Therefore, if a new system is brought into operation it must be borne in mind that the danger in rising costs may determine the progressive education authorities' policy, which might embarrass those who are most anxious to go forward in their relationship with the other sections of the municipal life.
I speak of that problem advisedly, because I am connected with a local education authority and I realise the difficulty. Therefore, I hope the Minister, who has already made a promise that such a review is taking place, will be able to make an announcement of the results of his consideration of the problem before the next financial year comes round in April, 1948. If he does that, I think he will lay the foundations for building a framework of university education which will be a credit to his Ministry and will be of service to this country in both the economic and social field.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I appreciate that there are a large number of Members who wish to speak in this Debate. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the Committee long. I think it is a complete

disgrace that after two years of this Government this is the first time we have had a whole day allocated to a Debate on education. The last time it was considered on the Estimates, I think it was Palestine which interrupted us halfway through and we started half an hour late. I want to put it on record that it is quite unfair when so many Members want to participate in this Debate, particularly large numbers of the majority party, who are interested in education, not to be given further time to discuss these matters.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Dryden Brook) has a keen appreciation of university education and has raised a first class question, namely, what is going to replace the further Education and Training scheme. My figures are that two-thirds of the students—I should like to get them officially contradicted—who go to universities after this scheme is finished will have to pay. There are 67,000 students at the universities, and if we add up the figures which the hon. Member for Halifax gave, it will give a total of about 6,000 a year. If we multiply the figure by three or four years it comes to something between 18,000 and 24,000, so that over two-thirds will have to dip into their fathers' pockets and the money will not be there. There will not be £200 forthcoming from the average family.
My friends at Oxford tell me that the colleges will not be filled, Barlow Report or no Barlow Report, because they will not be able to pay the £250 at that university. At the present moment it is not true that 90 per cent. are coming from the Services to the universities. At the universities I represent in this House the figure is more like fifty-fifty. It is only Oxford, Cambridge and London which have the 90 per cent. ex-Service men. In Manchester, Liverpool or some of the other universities the figure is as low as 30 or 40 per cent. according to Faculty. This question must be carefully examined by the Minister. We did have a few questions about it the other day and I am grateful personally for everything that is being done in this connection.
The other point I want to raise is the question of administration. It is too big a question to go into in detail but I am less nervous owing to the fact that the


right hon. Gentleman the Minister has experience of local education authorities. If we look back over the history of English education we find that its progress is due to local leaders, Henry Morris at Cambridge, Sir Robert Martin and Sir H. Buckington in Leicestershire, Dr. Schofield at Loughborough, Wright Robinson in Manchester, Acland in Devonshire, and so on. It is such chairmen of education committees and distinguished directors who have developed education policy, and the county architects, as for instance, in Derbyshire——

Mr. Cove: And the local Labour leaders.

Mr. Lindsay: That depends entirely on the area. Some Liberals, some Quakers and others of different views have been associated with the development of education. At any rate, they are distinguished men.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.0 p.m.

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1947.
2. Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act, 1947.
3. Northern Ireland Act, 1947.
4. Probation Officers (Superannuation) Act, 1947.
5. Statistics of Trade Act, 1947.
6. Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947.
7. Fire Services Act, 1947.
8. Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947.
9. Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
10. Crown Proceedings Act, 1947.

11. Public Offices (Site) Act, 1947.
12. Wellington Museum Act, 1947.
13. Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1947.
14. Inverness Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1947.
15. Kingston-upon-Hull Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1947.
16. Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1947.
17. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Gloucester) Act, 1947.
18. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Tunbridge Wells) Act, 1947.
19. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leeds) Act, 1947.
20. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Torquay) Act, 1947.
21. Brighton Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1947.
22. Mexborough and Swinton Traction (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1947.
23. Dudley Corporation Act, 1947.
24. Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Act, 1947.
25. Cheshire and Lancashire County Councils (Runcorn - Widnes Bridge, etc.) Act, 1947.
26. Hove Corporation Act, 1947.
27. City of London (Tithes) Act, 1947.
28. Sunderland Corporation Act, 1947.
29. Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act, 1947.
30. Helston and Porthleven Water Act, 1947.
31. London Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1947.
32. Nottingham Corporation Act, 1947.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Parsonages (Amendment) Measure, 1947.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £117,117,400, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Education for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948 namely:


Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education
£91,185,535


Class VII, Vote 6, Public Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £225,275)
£25,931,865



£117,117,400"

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: We observe that even when we do get started we are apt to be interrupted. The point I was on was that the glory of English education was the development of the individual character of local authorities. I would ask my right hon. Friend to use all his influence to see that there is no further interruption than is absolutely necessary in the free administration of education by local authorities. He will remember that, not very long ago, it was necessary to get the permission of His Majesty's inspector in order to carry on out-of-school activities. That has been abolished. There were also circulars dealing with the keeping of school registers. Those have been abolished. Now, with the meals in schools, the canteens, and the H.O.R.S.A. campaign, and 12 priority officers established for the first time, there is a danger that we shall have even slower administration. Some of my friends in the administration are asking themselves questions. Their staffs have doubled or trebled. Thank heaven, we have now got back to nearly 500 inspectors. Presumably, they will now be able to get on with their proper job and not be semi-administrative. The Ministry is now senior partner. The first Section of the Act reads:
local authorities under his direction and control.
That is brand new. The danger is a very serious one that we may be converting local education authorities into agents of a centralised form of education.
The second point I want to make concerns teachers in primary and grammar

schools. I agree that the most important educational even since the war is the establishment of the 50 emergency training colleges. In fact, I am compelled to ask what it is that the men there have got. Some of them are ex-policemen. Fifty of them are ex-prisoners of war. Apart from the fact that they' are older or maturer and in many cases married—the average age is about 30—what have they got? It is easy to decry the other teachers. I would do no such thing, but these men have brought a fresh inspiration into a very tired profession. I saw some of these men in Manchester the other day. Some of them have been silversmiths and others belong to all kinds of skilled trades. They were making equipment to take into the schools because the equipment was no longer available from the Ministry. They were literally inventing a new teaching method in some cases. Can we carry over into peace this principle? Should not we make entry into and exit from the teaching profession more flexible? Could we not make it possible for the teachers who want to get out at 50 to do so with a pension proportionate to their years?
Something important is being discovered in those emergency training colleges. It would be very valuable if careful records could be kept of the successful teachers. It is a very remarkable improvisation. In addition, I would pay tribute to the better administration of further education and training grants. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has had such letters as he read out. I am glad that the whole grant question has been settled. It means that an enormous amount of work must have been done to get this happy conclusion. I know how hard the officials have worked When we come to the 40,000 out of the 100,000 who have been accepted, it means that 60,000 have gone back to other walks of life. Am I right in saying that 10,000 or more are still waiting?

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Fourteen thousand.

Mr. Lindsay: It is 14,000? Ought we to keep ex-Service people waiting all this time? We have not been very practical planners about this question. Every-body was surprised at the numbers who applied and I do not wish to be unfair.
I only utter this warning. The planning of teachers has got to be done a very great many years ahead. In the case of the infant and junior schools, there is something unsatisfactory when we have a completely wrong proportion of men to women. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) that this very large supply of teachers can be used. I would like to press this point again. Will my right hon. Friend advance the overseas teaching service plan? This is a question of administration. I met a man on the British Council in Italy three or four months ago. He had a first-class knowledge of Italian and Swedish education. Why cannot he come back into the teaching profession? Men working with John Trevelyan, organiser of education for British children in Germany, are first-class men compared with the teaching service of the Control Commission, because the people in the former service know their future: they have been seconded and retain their pensions. It should be the same for the Services, the Colonial Service and an organised Overseas Teaching Service. I believe there is an enormous case for keeping these people within the ambit of the teaching profession, a 5 per cent. extra to those actually teaching in the primary and secondary schools of the country, to help man the Colonial Service, the overseas teaching service, and so on.
The Minister's job is two-fold—imaginative administration and inspiration. He is no longer in the legislative queue. He is in the building queue where he has, I hope, a fairly good place. When it comes to the other teachers of the grammar schools, I am not satisfied. I am satisfied with what he said about grammar schools, but I would point out that when the Act was going through some of us asked what would happen to the independent schools. I warned the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden about that. There were 230 direct grant schools. Thirty-five have gone independent and 170 are still direct grant. The part of the Act relating to the inspection of independent schools has not been brought into force. The effect at the moment is that more scholarships to Oxford and Cambridge are achieved by the direct grant and independent schools

than by the grammar schools. This is a very serious question.
Of course the primary schools are the most important. That is where class division starts. Hon. Gentlemen who send their children to a preparatory school on the seashore where there are 12 children to one master have to remember that a large number of children are now 50 in a class. It is here that the real problem of class division starts and it will not be cured by tampering with secondary education. These schools have produced the scholars, scientists and administrators. One has only to look at the Dictionary of National Biography or "The Times" obituary columns to see the numbers of distinguished men who have passed through the grammar schools to the universities. They are the schools of the poor boys of this country. I will not cry "Wolf "or as my hon. Friend called it, "stinking fish." We must somehow restore confidence.
It is time that we brought back into the secondary teaching profession the men who are going out. Some of them are going into administration because administration is better paid than teaching. Some are going to the inspectorate. That will stop. Some are going out of the profession altogether. The figures are far too eloquent. It is no good saying, as I have seen in some parts of the Press: Are we going to pay according to the scarcity value? If so, why not pay women infant teachers much higher wages? That is not a logical argument. The point is that we have helped to create conditions where it is not possible for a man who has the responsibility of a family to live. Relatively and absolutely, his position has deteriorated. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have made much more eloquent arguments about this to me privately and have written to the Minister. The salary facts are well known, whether in comparison with local authority servants, scientific civil servants or the ordinary civil servants. I hope that the infamous merger Clause will be abolished. I will not talk about the Burnham scale today, although I hope it will be considerably amended.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that we must not say anything to bring pressure to bear. I suppose he disapproved of the letters in "The Times." It is just as well that people can still write


letters to any newspaper even when discussions are going on. It is a very old method of publicity. I do not say that it should not be done. If the boot were on the other foot, a lot of people would be writing to the newspapers. It is perfectly all right. It makes for a very happy relationship. The facts are very clear. For a variety of reasons, numbers of men are leaving the grammar schools. On the other hand, I do not think that the figures of those who are going into the universities show signs of a falling off at the moment. It is a hopeful sign for the future.
When the Act was going through it secured very wide approval in this House. At any rate, a number of us felt that secondary education for all would be ushered in in a way which meant the retaining of standards. I have been an advocate of secondary education for all for 25 years. I wrote a book about it 21 years ago, and I have devoted a great deal of time to it. I do not want to be accused of any false values on this. There is a snobbery still existing in parts of the grammar school world but there is something else much more serious. The senior schools and the junior technical schools of this country were building up their character. There was nothing wrong. One can go to East Suffolk today and see the results of it—all due to the genius of one of His Majesty's Inspectors, thirty years ago.
I welcome the Ministry's latest circular, No. 144. It is a generous circular as well as being much more careful in defining terms. I think that circular will be accepted throughout the teaching profession. It not only defines the schools but it indicates that the Ministry ask for the widest possible experiment. I should like to see one or two good examples of the multilateral school in this country. None exists in spite of what my right hon. Friend says. There is no sanction for such a school from any experience I have of Europe. The majority of the boys in America do not go to multilateral schools or to schools of over 500, which is not generally known, and therefore there is no great experience to say that this is the only method. I rejoiced to see that the other night at the Regent Street Polytechnic, the teachers and apparently the parents of the Middlesex secondary schools, had a protest meeting against the new development

plan for Middlesex. That shows that there is still the ferment in education which helped to produce the 1944 Act.
If we can keep that spirit alive we need not worry too much about the particular nostrums and dogmas which some people have at this moment. I believe we are all striving for the same thing, to see the widest variety possible of secondary education in this country with complete equality of opportunity, especially in the teaching world, which is where the quality ought to be. The teaching profession will achieve this unity not by having it forced on them, but by growth. I believe that the over-organisation of our education is a very real danger at present. The schools of this country are local, community growths in many cases and, because they have that spirit in them, you cannot organise them from Whitehall or even from the large municipalities and local education authorities. Finally, I would congratulate my right hon. Friend. I am glad to see him steering education at present, and some of us in the House will give him every possible encouragement.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I join with the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Lindsay) in congratulating the Minister both on his performance this afternoon and on his work at the Ministry. It is a grand thing when a Minister of Education is one who has the warm support of those engaged in the service of education, and the present Minister has certainly succeeded in gaining that support. I thought this afternoon, when he offered congratulations to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), that he was being unduly modest about himself. The right hon. Gentleman has rendered signal service in the field of education but there was almost a stampede in this House about the emergency training scheme, and that was a year after the right hon. Gentleman had left the Ministry. I said a year ago, and I suggest again tonight, that there was little left but a skeleton or a promise, and the hard work of making the Education Act real has been done by the team who are now at the Ministry of Education.
It would be as well for the Committee to remember tonight that education is a service in which the human factor counts almost more than it does anywhere else.


Therefore, I think it is a little strange that both the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman, while paying tribute in their speeches to everybody in the Department, paid no tribute to the teaching profession. I was waiting for it, because we are accustomed to getting it, and we pass our own comments afterwards.
I would remind the Committee that conditions in the schools have not been easy for the last ten years. I suppose they have never been easy in the schools of the poor, or of the great majority in this country—the schools to which the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities referred, the former elementary schools. However, in the last few years it has been exceptionally difficult. The "blitz" led to overcrowding, to teachers and classes having to try to carry on the education service in conditions which are well nigh intolerable in some places. We have at the same time as the large classes, which are inevitable, a lack of equipment, particularly in the primary schools, and a shortage of books. All these things have added to the strain on the teaching profession, and above all, the introduction of school meals on a large scale has added a burden to the profession which has been faced in a remarkable way.
I believe that those of us in this Committee, and the country ought to be extremely grateful to the teaching profession for the way it has rendered service in connection with school meals, and I believe the Ministry needs to keep a sense of urgency about the conditions in which those meals are given in the schools. There must be implementation of the promise that conditions would be improved, that helpers would be provided and that, as soon as possible, meals would not have to be taken in the same classroom where, later in the day, lessons have to be given. There are few things more annoying for a schoolmaster, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) will say, for a schoolmistress, than to have the smell of the meal pervading the classroom all the afternoon. It tends to upset the whole business and creates a bad atmosphere.
In the short time I propose to occupy, I shall deal with two issues of great importance. The first is of general importance—the supply and training of teachers. My right hon. Friend this afternoon re-

minded us that he was not afraid that he would not have enough teachers to implement the Education Act, 1944, but there is at present in the infant and junior schools of this country a real crisis in staffing by women teachers. The infants' schools are suffering particularly, and it is rather curious that on 23rd June this year there were 2,500 women applicants for training in our two-year colleges who could not be accepted, not because of any lack of qualification, but simply because the colleges are already over-crowded. It would be serious if these women were lost to the profession.
Last year 1,000 young women failed to obtain entrance into our training colleges, and the Committee ought to be made aware, furthermore, that in spite of the ban which the Ministry so wisely lifted on the employment of married women teachers, there is still reluctance on the part of some authorities to employ married women teachers. Those authorities have prided themselves in the past that they are progressive. Some, I regret to say, are in the industrial parts and the valleys of South Wales. On this matter they are particularly reactionary if they are not prepared to help the Ministry and the cause of education at this time. The provision of accommodation for the training of women teachers must be increased considerably, but I am very much alarmed about the tendency to say, "Less men." The right hon. Gentleman opposite did not quite say that, but he almost said it. He drew attention to the fact that we have been training four men to one woman under the emergency training scheme, but the scheme is very-young and we have been training teachers for many years, and the balance has been very much the other way for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman should have been the first to see to it.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I took the trouble to say that we should need all the men, and a great many more.

Mr. Thomas: I know that the right hon. Gentleman slipped in that statement in the middle of an argument which seemed to suggest that we should cut down the number of men.

Mr. Butler: In my original speech, as prepared by myself, that was a cardinal point which I wished to make.

Mr. Thomas: I have been told that stonewallers always get the best in the end.


The right hon. Gentleman may have prepared notes, but I know the impression left on me was not the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has now made. Recently the secretary to the association of education authorities of England and Wales declared that in 1952 there would be a surplus of roughly 11,000 men teachers. I rejoiced this afternoon when the Minister made it clear that there is going to be employment for all those who are in training now, and who have been accepted for training in the emergency training scheme. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, will confirm that that promise is binding for all those who are accepted for training, but who have not yet entered college. The Minister promised this afternoon that he would see that the needs of infants' schools were brought before students in the grammar schools of the country. I think he made that promise.

Mrs. Leah Manning: He should have done.

Mr. Thomas: If he did not, he should have done so, and I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to say in his reply that this will be done.
In conclusion, I wish to speak about a very important issue. It is about what the Ministry of Education is doing for the Principality of Wales. The Ministry has set up a working party to consider whether it is possible to have a joint education committee for the whole of the Principality of Wales. Wales is fortunate in that the Parliamentary Secretary has graced that working party by his chairmanship. There is an opportunity given to the people of Wales by the present Ministry which is unequalled by anything offered to Wales by this House in the past. For the first time in the history of the Principality, Whitehall recognises that the culture of Wales is something which ought to be acknowledged on a national scale. We appreciated the circulars which were issued when the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden was the President of the Board of Education, and he must not be too sensitive about what I say. But this is not advice, it is something practical which is being done.
For the first time we have a definite step forward by the Ministry giving to the Principality the opportunity to organise itself on a national basis. Too often in the past we have spoiled ourselves in Wales

by the North watching the South, just as I understand the North watches the South in England. We have had our local rivalries and jealousies. On occasion they have led to an impetus in education, but very often they have worked against it. I am hopeful that the work of the Minister, and in this direction in particular, the work of the Parliamentary Secretary, will be crowned with success. I feel that that tribute is due to the Ministry of Education for being so progressively minded in connection with the Principality. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that as long as he realises the need for giving to Welsh people an opportunity to develop their culture, and contribute to the life of the United Kingdom, so long will he be helping to break down a stupid nationalism which the mass of our people resent.

6.45 p.m.

Professor Gruffydd: It is not often that two Welshmen agree, but I am very glad on this occasion to follow the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) in his tribute to the work of the Ministry. I would like to add, however, that there is the Welsh Department of the Board of Education and that for the last 20 or 25 years it has been doing signal work for the Principality. Indeed, I go so far as to say that there is a general impression in Wales that we shall get a very much squarer deal on the national plane from Whitehall through the Ministry of Education than from our own local authorities, or from a national board of education of our own. I come to another matter which I must now get out of the way. I criticised the appointment of the present Minister of Education. Today I am as eager to say that I was wrong in that criticism as I then was in thinking I was right. I have been completely won over by the very charming and modest speech which he made today, although I had already persuaded myself, having listened to men who knew better than I, that I had been wrong, and I am very glad to make this apology.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the hon. Member write another letter to "The Times" saying that?

Professor Gruffydd: I understand, Mr. Beaumont, that you will allow this Debate


to range over the whole field of educational theory and practice as far as the Ministry of Education is responsible for them, and I wish, therefore, to take this unique opportunity of making a few unfashionable remarks, and to invite if necessary the usual accusation of pedantry. After all, I have been a teacher for more than 40 years, and I have for many years acted as an additional inspector of schools of all grades, primary, secondary, and technical. If speaking as a practical teacher is the same thing as talking like a pedant, I cannot help it. It may be a temptation for hon. Members on this side of the Committee to use the present difficulties in educational administration as another stick for the backs of the Government, but I assure the Committee that I am fully aware of the burdens which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have to shoulder.
In passing I say that within the limitations imposed on them, they are to be warmly congratulated on their excellent work. They are not answerable for the present shortcomings, except that the Government must be held responsible for the consequences of what I still regard as the ill-timed and premature extension of the school leaving age. That is my opinion, and probably the opinion of many other hon. Members. However, that has now been done, and we must do our best to achieve the impossible—that of putting a quart of teaching into a pint of facilities. Neither can we criticise the Government merely because they carry out the provisions contained in the 1944 Act, which was passed by a Coalition Government, a specious, and, in many respects, reactionary Act.
I wish to say something about the present fashion in educational ideas, as it is reflected in these Estimates. I deliberately use the term "fashionable" because of all human activities, it is the popular notion of education that from time to time undergoes the most frequent and the most violent changes. I think that the Committee will agree that it would be fair to describe the prevailing fashion as a revolt against what was regarded as the academic view of education. It has now become the correct and acceptable thing to decry the cultural training which we associate with the grammar schools and

the arts and science faculties of the university, as being out of touch with life, something out-dated and out-moded, a useless survival of that remote past which preceded this blessed era of gigantic engineering and the atomic bomb.
On the other hand, one is regarded as educationally sound if one demands a great extension of vocational education. One is definitely saying the right thing if one says that. We have heard some of it today, and a vast excrescence of portly gentlemen in striped trousers reiterate this slogan at innumerable prize-giving functions. A few days ago the Labour mayor of a North country town visited a secondary school and came to a class of the sixth form, which was, with great enjoyment, reading through a book of Virgil. He asked permission to speak and told the class that he could not understand why they were allowed to waste their time and the ratepayers' money on such absolute rubbish instead of, as he said, devoting themselves to something more practical and more profitable, such as technology. That reflects a common opinion in' this country but the validity of an opinion does not depend upon the vociferation with which it is proclaimed. Indeed, its validity is often in inverse ratio to the number of those who shout it. I am convinced that it is now time that someone's shouts should try to stop the rout. It is unfortunate that it should be left to an obscure back bencher to try to do so, but I am afraid that it cannot be helped.
This heresy is not confined to secondary and university education. Even in the primary schools there were already many signs of it before the passing of the present Act, the workings of which are again reflected in these Estimates. Now it has been given a definite form and sanction. Already, anything that savoured of academic teaching, that is anything that trained the child to use his intelligence in judging facts rather than in accepting them was being gradually eliminated from the schools. For instance, the old fashioned parsing and analysis, which was an invaluable help to the use of language as the instrument of reason, had for a long time been banished by the theorists of the Board of Education, but calculating profit and loss, measuring the outflow of cisterns, and such so-called practical teaching was retained and


enlarged. Woodwork, handicraft and gardening and other such subjects were introduced into the already overcrowded time-table—which was, of course, all to the good, except that each new introduction, however desirable in itself, simply usurped the place of cultural teaching, and the primary schools were, before 1944, and, I assert, are now becoming less and less literate and more and more like a joinery or a hotel kitchen or a dentist's waiting room. I had my attention drawn recently to a little girl who would in my time have been in standard four. That little girl could just write. I was shocked to find that ever since she had been in school she had never been taught one note of music.
The position seems to me to have got much worse. In the past the teacher was concerned with teaching, just as a plumber is concerned with plumbing or a bricklayer with the laying of bricks. Now, teaching is only a minor part of his innumerable duties. The trade unions see to it that the plumber does nothing but plumbing, and that nobody else does that work; the same is true of the bricklayer. The teachers' union is either powerless or unwilling to see to it that the teacher is allowed to teach.

Mrs. Manning: What do teachers do in the primary classes?

Professor Gruffydd: If the hon. Lady listens she will hear in my very next sentence. Today the primary teacher is forced, by the policy of the Government, and I think by public opinion—I will say that—and especially by the administration of the local education authorities, to concern himself with all manner of extraneous chores—the doling out of milk, the supervision of meals—and let me assure the hon. Lady that I have had these facts from imnumerable teachers—the collection and recording of savings, and, of course, with the filling of innumerable forms, and all this when they have to cope with classes the size of which makes teaching a travesty of itself. With the imposition of these duties teaching becomes an impossible task. In fact, the prevailing wish of the authorities seems to be "Anything rather than teaching" and "Heaven save us from book learning."
In the restricted time thus left for training the intelligence, the 1944 Act has made further provision for the inculcation

of religion and morals, and now the teachers with very inadequate pay compared with other professional workers, have to be waiters, milkmen, clerks, gardeners, and, finally, lay preachers, not to mention the fact that in many cases they are constantly harried by their new bosses, the school caretakers, who often have a political pull on the governing body of the school. If that is doubted I can name a school where the caretaker had been the chairman of the governors.

Mrs. Manning: Why not?

Professor Gruffydd: I say that he had a pull with the governors, that is all. Add to this all the fantastically large classes, the disastrous lack of books, and is it surprising that in spite of the better-trained and harder working teachers, the percentage of illiteracy amongst those who have passed through the primary school is higher now than it was 50 years ago.
I am afraid that a good deal of my time has been taken by a consideration of the position in primary schools. I can only deal very briefly with secondary education where, of course, this curious hatred of academic learning is most marked. It has become quite clear that the grammar schools—those schools to which my hon. Friend the Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) referred so adequately—which have been distinguished in the past for pure learning whether in the humanities or in science, are, so far as the general population is concerned, becoming ineffective in any real culture and education. As has already been said, most parents, and especially parents who belong to the honourable party opposite, if they can afford it, will send their children not to the grammar schools but to the direct grant schools and the independent schools and, if they can possibly afford it, to the public schools. I note that there is a great silence amongst hon. Members opposite. Most of the things which I have said tonight have been vociferously denied. I see that there is no denial of that. I have said before in this House that the person who sells ready-made clothes does not himself wear reach-me-downs.
It is becoming impossible to staff the grammar schools on account of the low value which the late Government, in particular, set on distinction and accomplishment in the field of scholarship, and


especially because of the uncertainty in the plans of the local education authorities for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Further, it is evident that some directors of education have such a sadistic hatred of academic learning and such contempt for culture that they have embarked upon what can only be described as a persecution of the grammar school. In particular, they have insisted on the power which apparently they have under the Act, of curtailing the holidays and making them conform to the shorter holidays of the primary schools.
Meanwhile, all the gramophones and megaphones are blaring out the importance of technical education. Apparently the future world is going to be mechanised and, it is argued, that unless we as a country are to fall behind the rest, we must mechanise our education—we must be technicalised. Technical secondary education will not produce technicians, it will only produce mechanics. If mechanics only are wanted, all well and good, the Government should go on with their scheme of technical education. But the real technicians are not the people who manipulate machinery devised by somebody else. They are original thinkers who can apply to practical use the discoveries of the scientists.

Mr. Messer: Cannot a mechanic be an original thinker?

Professor Gruffydd: Of course he can, but he has not been trained as an original thinker. That is the point. [Interruption.] It will help me to make my speech if the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) would follow the rules which she enforced at school.

Mrs. Manning: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman again to say that I taught in a school where the children were allowed to say what they thought at the time when they thought it, and that is why they emerged from the school as intelligent human beings?

Professor Gruffydd: I understand a lot now. Real scientists cannot be trained in technical or in modern schools, but in schools where the whole insistence of the teaching is academic so that the mind of the pupil is adequately prepared for profiting by the knowledge imparted to him later in the university. All this, of course,

is a commonplace to any educationist. I would remind hon. Members that the ordinary parents, the common men and women of this country, are perfectly sound on this point. Whatever the authorities say about their child, it is to the grammar school that they want to send him, and as a result, the present system of entrance examination and of screening the candidates is causing great resentment in the country. It is regarded by the people as an arbitrary closing of the gates of culture against their children.
Finally, I wish to appeal to this Socialist Government not to fall into the common error which I have described, because their very existence, the very fact that Socialism has become possible, is due to the work of past pioneers and thinkers who were not technicians, who were not people trained in business methods, but who had a craving for what their penury had denied them—a cultural education in the strictest and most academic sense of the word. What made Keir Hardie and others the great men they were was that they had a thirst for righteousness, a craving which arose from a devoted study of the work of poets and prophets and philosophers. Even today, when the common man may be said to have come into his own—or, at least, to have got what he wanted—anyone visiting the classes of the W.E.A., or the extension classes of the universities, will be astounded by the respect shown by these students for the kind of academic learning which is now sneered at. And they are right: for ultimately it is the basic enlightenment which will give power to all those who pursue truth whether in the humanities, the arts, science or, shall I say, in politics.

The Temporary-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): I would remind hon. Members that this Debate closes at half past nine, and that we have also had an interruption by Black Rod of sixteen minutes. This cuts down the Debate to a much shorter length than hon. Gentlemen might have expected. Therefore, perhaps I might appeal for shorter speeches.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) who seemed rather to fill the role of an educational Jeremiah. Although we may not be making under the present Act all the progress which we


so earnestly desire, certainly I think we are beginning to do something. As an administrator of education, I want to say to the Minister that there is a feeling amongst education authorities that with him at the head of the Ministry we have someone who really is doing the best he possibly can to improve the administration of education. One cannot attempt in the short time available to touch upon more than one facet of this subject. It is a very deplorable thing to recall that we have had only two Debates on education in almost the whole of this Session and that both of those Debates has been interfered with, one being cut almost by half. I feel that I must spend a few seconds in recording that, because it appears that education is not getting its fair share of attention in this Chamber from the Government.
As an administrator in education, I know that, amongst all the difficulties that we are up against, there is the very powerful one of buildings, and here the Minister, I know, has had a very great deal of difficulty indeed, because he has to fight, not merely the Minister of Health, but also his own shadow in the present Minister of Works. As an administrator, one has also experienced a great deal of frustration because of the ways of the Ministry in handling the different priorities for buildings. We are held up particularly by the action of the Department in spending so much time and attention on small things which they might well leave to the local education authorities to decide. This is particularly the case in the priorities for the smaller requirements. I think that, if the local authorities had not been interfered with but had been told by the Ministry what their allocation of labour and materials would be, and had been allowed to decide these priorities themselves, they would have done very much better than the Ministry has done. I have come across this difficulty time after time, and my own local authority, I am sure, would have achieved a great deal more if it had been allowed to carry on with less interference from the Ministry.
The Minister himself gave us an impression of the demands of local authorities for huts under the altered programme. I cannot think that this is so, because the demand for huts for temporary buildings is far greater than the Minister him-

self would have us believe, and until we get a substantial allocation of these huts and buildings, we shall not be able to implement that part of he Bill which was thrust upon us by the raising of the school leaving age this year in regard to the teaching of the secondary subjects.

Mr. Tomlinson: May I point out that all except 14 contracts nave actually been let, and that those 14 are waiting, as a matter of fact, upon the local authorities, because of difficulties which they have to meet, and not difficulties at our end?

Mr. Marshall: Possibly there are 14 approved projects to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but there must be before the Ministry, I imagine, scores of projects which are not yet approved by the Ministry, and which would not come into the picture as being contracts which had been actually let.

Mr. Tomlinson: I think we had better get this right. That applies only to those huts required after September, 1947. There is a definite programme, and of that programme, in all but 14 the local authorities' requirements have actually been met.

Mr. Marshall: I accept the Minister's word for that, although it is different from my information and my experience in my own local authority. The demand for buildings cannot be gainsaid, and I think that a great many local authorities are disappointed in many ways because we have been so stinted of buildings One knows the difficulty in regard to the requirements for housing, and one realises that housing must have all priority, but, as an administrator, I would suggest that if housing is priority No 1, schools are a very close priority No. 2. We cannot have houses without schools. I have experienced that kind of thing in the estates which grew up in the outer districts of London, and in which house building went on without any provision for schools. That was a bitter experience, and while we all know that we must get the building materials for housing, I hope the Minister will be able to assert himself very strongly among his colleagues to get much more priority in building materials and labour than he has had up to now.
The position now is that we are being asked to send into the Ministry our plans for 1948, though goodness knows how


much delay we shall meet with later on when we try to implement the provisions of the Act. Although the Minister touched upon a great many points, I was disappointed that he did not mention anything about the provision of boarding schools. This is a very important matter, but the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about it. The local authorities are very anxious to comply with the provisions of that part of the Act, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make some reference to it. I hope that, first and foremost, the Minister will be able to impress upon his colleagues the great need of more priority for building materials for schools. I have great hopes that he will do his best in that direction.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I do not know whether it is in order for a back bencher to compliment a Cabinet Minister, but, if it is, I should like to compliment my right hon. Friend on the lucidity and cogency with which he introduced the Estimates. Might I also say that teachers and educationists welcomed the appointment of the Minister on account of his human and moving eloquence, his administrative skill and ability, and because he is the first Minister of Education who was educated in the schools which he now administers.
During the past 18 months, it has been my lot to address a large number of public meetings upon the question of education and I think that the people of this country are more interested in education today than I have ever known them to be in the past 40 years. They are extremely anxious that their children should have the real secondary education that was promised to them when the 1946 Act was passed. It must be admitted that, so far, we have not made any great progress towards providing them with that secondary education, though it is true we have raised the school-leaving age to 15. The majority of our secondary modern schools, in equipment and general amenities, cannot really be classed as secondary schools. Under 10 per cent of them satisfy the building regulations recently issued. There are hundreds of schools in the country areas in which there are from 15 to 100 children in buildings which were erected in the 17th, 18th or 19th centuries, without lavatories,

libraries, gymnasia, woodwork or metal-work rooms, and, strange as it may seem, since many of them are in the country, without playing fields. It is rather unfair to keep children up to the age of 15 in schools of that type, and it will be impossible to keep them there until 16.
A tremendous amount of building for schools must be done in the near future if the Act is to be properly implemented. We shall have to collect the children from a number of villages in the country and take them to the new junior schools and the new modern secondary schools, and we shall have to provide the transport from their homes to these schools. At the same time, one is fully aware that we are engaged in the important task of rehousing our population, and that housing must have first priority. In these circumstances, it does seem to me that the Ministry might experiment with the possibility of constructing prefabricated classrooms, which could be rapidly constructed and easily assembled, in order to make progress with new school building.
In America, during the war. Mr. Henry Kaiser was able to build in 13 weeks, ships which formerly had taken 18 months to construct. What could be done with ships in America, I think, might be done with classrooms and the production of schools in this country. It is not the outside of a school building which is important; it is the interior, the equipment, the staffing, the heating and the lighting. We do not want to build schools which last for 100 years and are kept in use long after they are out of fashion. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to tell us that efforts are being made in the direction of constructing prefabricated classrooms which can be assembled to make new schools. I am quite certain that, unless building is expedited, we shall not be able to give effect to the provisions of the Education Act. 1944, for a good many years to come.
The other difficulty which was foreseen when that Act was first put on the Statute Book was that of finding teachers to staff the schools. That difficulty has been largely overcome by the success of the emergency training scheme. In that matter, I think we ought to congratulate, not only the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who was the author of the scheme, but also


the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, who has shown very great energy during the past 18 months in giving effect to it. We are now training a large number of students under the emergency training scheme, and we are getting very good reports about them. For the most part, they are men and women who are not entering the teaching profession merely to earn a living; they are also entering it in order to perform a social service. We do not expect them, at first, to be technically and completely competent in the difficult task of teaching. They will have to gain experience before they will be able to pull their full weight, but we have no doubt that they will make very useful and welcome additions to the teaching profession.
A large number of these students are still awaiting places in the emergency training colleges; I believe that 14,000 of them are still awaiting places, and a considerable number of them are working as temporary teachers in our schools. In fact, many of them were advised by the selection boards to take posts as temporary teachers in order to gain experience. One might almost say that they were morally directed into the schools as temporary teachers. When they took those posts, they thought that their waiting period would be in the region of from six to nine months, but they now find, from the latest circular which the Minister has issued, that the waiting period is likely to be two years.
The highest salary which they can earn as temporary teachers under the last Burnham Award is £228 per annum. Many of them are married men, with children to keep, and they find that they cannot buy new clothes for their wives, toys for their children, or furniture for the houses which they have taken. Indeed, there is a very grave danger that, owing to this financial stringency, a number of them will drift out of the profession and go into other occupations, where they can earn a living wage, at least for the time being. To make it worse, nearly all of them have long since spent the gratuity they received from the Services. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would be possible to make grants to the students awaiting training, or acting as temporary teachers, in order to bring their salaries up to at least the level of the grants which they will receive

when they are actually in the colleges. I should think that it would be possible to make some arrangement with the Treasury to this end.
Successful as the emergency training scheme has been, it has, in the main, provided only for men teachers. There is a grave scarcity of women teachers. Up to June of this year, 2,500 intending women teachers had been refused admission to training colleges and university departments, and last year over 1,000 of them were unable to secure training. The scarcity is particularly marked in the infants' schools. Generally speaking, when a local education authority advertises for infant school teachers, it does not get a single reply. We have to remember that, owing to the rising birthrate, in a few years time there will be half a million additional children in our infants schools, necessitating the employment of some 15,000 additional teachers. There is a very grave danger that our educational system will break down during its first stages through lack of such teachers, unless something is done to encourage young women to take up the profession.
One reason why infants' school teachers are scarce is, apparently, that they are usually sexually attractive. Their marriage rate is rather higher than that of most other women teachers. The highest marriage rate in the profession is that among domestic science teachers. Of course, we can understand that; they know how to feed the brute. But, next to them, the marriage rate is highest among infants' school teachers. Although the marriage bar has now been abolished, and girls in these schools can go on teaching after marriage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) has said, quite a number of local authorities still look rather coolly on married women teachers, and tend to discourage them. They still cling to the old prejudice, so common among local education authorities some years ago, that a woman who is a teacher ought not to have both a man and a job. I trust that my right hon. Friend will exercise his usual moral suasion on those authorities who look coldly on married teachers, and will get them to alter their outlook.
Then, again, there are the very large classes in the infants' schools. There are, today, over 40,000 classes in our schools


with over 40 children in each. We have not improved much since 1938 when there were 42,000 classes with over 40 children in each. A large number of these big classes are in the infants' schools, which makes the work of the teacher extremely onerous, because the little ones want a lot of individual attention, and cannot do much for themselves. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to devise some scheme of helpers for the teachers in these schools in order to lessen the burden which they are bearing at the present moment. There is also a lesser chance of promotion for teachers in infants' schools than for teachers in other types of schools. It would be a good thing if more posts of special responsibility were available to those teachers. But it is important that, by one means or another, we should increase the number of these teachers, and indeed, increase the number of women entrants into the profession generally.
We have been told that speeches must be short on account of the lack of time, and I will conclude by saying that members of the teaching profession generally have welcomed the appointment of my right hon. Friend to his office. During the war we had a very great Minister of Education in the person of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who conducted his great Measure through the House of Commons with skill, judgment and tremendous industry. He put the Measure on the Statute Book. It is the duty of my right hon. Friend to put the Measure into operation, and perhaps the latter task will be more difficult than putting it on the Statute Book. We feel that he desires with all his heart and soul to put this Act into operation, and we hope that when it is necessary to obtain priorities in materials and equipment, he will not hesitate to bring pressure on the other Ministries, and we wish him the best of luck.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. York: Unlike other speakers, I am one of those base creatures who are complete amateurs, and I have not even had the opportunity to serve on a local education committee. But I am going to speak for—and I believe I represent—that great mass of unorganised parents—and for the rest I do not care two hoots. I wish to put before the Committee the complaints of the parents at the treatment which we are receiving from the

experts. The first, and I think probably the most important, complaint is that which deals with the closure of schools in rural areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) made a statement which might be open to misinterpretation. I understood him to mean—although he told me later that it was certainly not in his thoughts—that he believes in the complete closure of all schools possessing single teachers and bad buildings. I doubt if that was the impression he wished to create. What I think he meant was that such cases must be very carefully considered, but that some of those schools can be retained on the merits of the case. I think he and the Minister would agree that that is correct.
In my area in the West Riding, the development plan put forward by the local education committee means the wholesale slaughter of the rural village schools. In that area 29 village schools are scheduled for closure. I hope they will not get any further than being scheduled. The intention is to transfer these schools to large central schools where, I believe, the numbers will run up as high as 150 young children from 5 to 11 years of age. I think most of us approve of the central secondary school. What we are opposed to is the centralisation of the junior school. I want to make that point quite clear. The reasons for this proposed centralisation are: poor buildings, too small numbers of pupils, and the ill effects on the teachers. I will speak briefly on each of those reasons. I wish to place before the Minister the objections of the parents, and these are not necessarily my own ideas, although I support them. I have had many meetings in villages with parents who have protested against the proposals of the local education authority, and who maintain that the 5 to 11 year olds are far better fed and looked after by their parents than by school teachers; that small children are far better brought up in small numbers than in large groups, and that they will get worse education because they will be in classes of 30 to 40 children, whereas at present they are in classes of 10 to 20.

Mrs. Manning: In classes of a single age group?

Mr. York: Not necessarily. The hon. Lady is an expert, and I would ask her


to listen to the parents' point of view for a while. I do not think she will deny that in central schools, with 150 young children whose ages range from 5 to 11, it is far more difficult to look after them properly as children of those ages need to be looked after. In addition, in the remote areas which represent a large part of my constituency, not only do the children have to walk long distances before they get to a negotiable road, but if schemes of this sort are put into effect, they will have to take a long bus ride as well. Those are some of the objections which the parents have put to me and which I know to be true, and I hope the Minister will consider them when he deals with particular cases which will be brought to his attention.
With regard to poor buildings, buildings are not the main part of education; I think we are all agreed about that. A large number of these village schools could be improved by a reasonable expenditure of money. We do not want palaces; we want reasonably good buildings, and the present ones could be improved. In those places where the villagers themselves are keen on having a village school, they will be quite prepared to give financial assistance either to the Church authority or to the local authority.
Then there is the factor of too few pupils. I submit that people who live in country areas, and particularly in remote country areas, get little or nothing for their rates and taxes, except education. Surely, they have the right to demand that they should be given rather more in educational expenditure in return for their payments than the urban people who get so much for their rates and taxes. As for the effect of segregation upon teachers, I appreciate the problem; but surely the education of the children is the first consideration, and the effect on the teachers, although it is important, is only a secondary consideration. The right way to look at this problem is to move the teachers to the children, instead of moving the children to the teachers. If a single teacher is living in a remote village, surely the answer is not to put the central school where the teachers can be together, but to leave the schools where they are, to build a central house where the teachers can live, and move the teachers out to the schools by motor car or, in certain circumstances, by bicycle or, perhaps, the local bus service. We should not move the

children against the wishes of the parents in order to meet the convenience of the teachers.
I will give an example concerning one area where it is proposed to put seven village schools into one central school at a cost of about £10,000. Surely, it would be far better to spend £3,000 on building a house for the teachers to live in, and spend the other £7,000 on re-equipping those village schools and retaining them. Incidentally, the sum of £1,000 is only the Ministry's portion of the cost; the total might be as much as £1,000 or £2,000. I would like to know whether the Ministry of Education believe that the parents' views should be considered. If they do, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in all the villages with which he and I am concerned, and which may be added to in the future, the parents are 95 per cent., and in some cases 100 per cent., against the proposed scheme. If the parents are to be given any choice in the matter, I say confidently that the scheme for closing the schools will not be accepted. If, on the other hand, the parents' feelings are to be swept aside without any consideration at all, this Government can no longer be said to be implementing the Education Act of my right hon. Friend.
The second complaint—I really have not time to develop it fully, if I am to keep to my 10 minutes—is the method by which the local education authority has dealt with the area executive in the Harrogate Area No. 2. Here, under the Education Act, a scheme was put up by the local education authority, for consideration of three alternatives by that area executive committee, and their terms of reference were, to decide which alternative was most suitable to local conditions. Having met, this area executive came to a certain conclusion. That conclusion was completely ignored, and the local education authority said, "We know best and this is our solution." After a certain amount of argument the matter is now before the Minister. But I want to put this point to him. Are we to have cooperation between area executives and the local education authorities, or are we to have dictation by the local education authorities and mere compliance by executives reduced to being only useless tools? We were promised by my right hon. Friend—although many of us had very grave misgivings on this point—that


area executives would be given real executive power, that their advice would be taken, and that they would be given a real part to play in education. In the West Riding of Yorkshire that promise has been and is being broken.
What I am asking the Minister of Education to do is to say if he approves—and I think it is right that he should tell us whether or not he approves—of this promise being implemented; that if local advice is considered to be part of the scheme, that advice should be taken and not swept aside, as one right hon. Gentleman said, for a sort of mad lust after multilateral schools, or some other notion which is purely a notion and a theory, and has by no means been tested in practice. So I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who, like me, knows conditions in the North, to see that not only the promises but the whole idea behind local autonomy and local freedom of choice in education matters of the country shall be carried out, as was promised us when we passed the Education Act, 1944.

Mr. Tomlinson: There is one thing I should like the hon. Gentleman to get clear, and that is that consultation for the receiving of advice does not of necessity mean that the Minister, who is seeking the advice, must concur in the advice he gets; and it is not to be assumed, if the advice is not followed, that consultation was not held.

Mr. York: That was not the point I was making. I was not accusing the Minister of deviating from the Act. What I am questioning is the action of the local education authorities in going over the heads of the local executives.

7.43 p.m.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Before making the few remarks I had in mind to make I should like to refer to two speeches made by hon. Members opposite. The first speech was that of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). We are used to the hyperbole of his speeches here, but I think he exceeded himself today. I remember his attack on the occasion of the appointment of the Minister. That, I am glad to say, he withdrew today. I remember his attack on the men trained in the emergency training colleges. That he has not had the decency to withdraw.

But the attack made during the course of his speech today was on the work done by the teachers. The hon. Gentleman says it is not teaching at all, merely the preparing of meals, the measuring and weighing of children, the keeping of records. It is true we do these things in schools. But a great many teachers regard that as part of the whole life of the child and, therefore, as part of the child's education, which is not nowadays a mere matter of chalk and talk, but is a matter of the whole social, spiritual and educational life of the child. Therefore, the vast majority of the teachers are very willing to do these things, although naturally there are some of them who do not entirely agree; but the National Union of Teachers has accepted this view of the new responsibilities and our members carry these duties out loyally.
I must also refer to the hon. Member's suggestion that everybody in the country is sneering at academic education. Nothing could be more untrue. We are asking that more and more children suitable for this type of education should have it. Only about 10 per cent. of children had that advantage in the past. We want far more. If 12 per cent. or 15 per cent. of the children are suitable to profit by it we hope the local authorities will give the opportunity to those children; and we hope that they will have the opportunity of going right on to the university and not have to pay for that university education at all. A full, free education to the very limit by which a child can profit is our aim. But the hon. Gentleman has not understood the very first idea of this Act. He has not the vaguest conception of what it is all about. He does not know what the Act means. This Act means that every child shall have that kind of education for which it is suited. If the child is benefiting by its education making something of it, then that child is receiving a cultural education. It is not only Latin, Greek, mathematics, science and modern languages that are cultural. Culture is anything that a child can learn and make its own and benefit by. There are many hundreds of thousands of children in this country who could not possibly benefit by the kind of education given in an ordinary, academic grammar school, and so we must give them something else; the very best we can offer; but it must be the kind of education by which the child


can benefit, and that is the whole basis of the Butler Act, and that is why we on this side of the Committee, and the vast majority of hon. Members, I am sure, on the other side, have welcomed it and thought it a fine Education Act.
I had great hopes when the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) rose in his place. I thought he was going to make the speech that I wanted to make—a speech in support of the rural areas. But he was wide of the mark, and showed that he did not really understand what this Act is about.

Mr. Kirkwood: He is a Tory.

Mrs. Manning: Even if he is a Tory, he should be leading the parents of his area, and not following blindly behind them; and he should be showing the parents what is the best thing for the children in the rural areas. Let me say a word about rural education. I am not happy about it. For many years rural education has lagged very far behind education in the rest of the country and I fear that it is still going to do so. No one welcomes the raising of the school-leaving age more than I, and I shall welcome it when it is raised to 16, but I cannot help feeling that the extra year will not endear itself to boys and girls who have to sit for yet another year in the same insanitary, badly built, badly Ventilated schools without water, lighting or lavatories in which they have sat since they were five years old: without playgrounds, without woodwork rooms, without domestic science centres, gardens or any of the amenities enjoyed by urban children.

Mr. York: They have all got playgrounds.

Mrs. Manning: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, instead of contradicting me, would take a turn round the rural areas, and read the statistics of the Ministry of Education, and then he will find that many rural schools have not got playgrounds at all. He will also find that many of the playgrounds they have got, have highly dangerous surfaces, the vast majority of them are quagmires in the winter and deserts like the Sahara in summer, and not suitable for children to play in at all. He does not understand the first thing about rural education.
If we are really to make our boys and girls welcome an advanced education and

a longer period in the schools—as we hope they will—we have to do something about reorganisation in the rural areas, and do it very quickly. The Minister gave us some interesting facts, but it was an overall picture and gave us no real idea of progress in the rural areas; he did not tell us how far—I always want to call them Hengist and Horsa—H.O.R.S.A. and S.F.O.R.S.A. have pranced into the rural areas of this country. We do not know how many hutments have been offered in the rural areas, or how many have been accepted. He told us something about work for defective children, but not how much has been done in the rural areas; something about school meals, but not how many children in rural schools are receiving them. I would venture to suggest that in some county areas it is as low as 12 per cent. So I think I had better give the Committee some figures.
Much of the trouble in the rural areas is due to neglect in the past. It is now 20 years since the Hadow Committee reported to the Ministry of Education that schools should be reorganised and, in the rural areas, concentrated. But what has been the result? As far as the rural areas for which the report was intended are concerned, that report has been implemented to but a very small extent. Indeed, 62.5 per cent. of schools in the rural areas are still not reorganised; nearly 1,100 rural areas schools have less than 20 children on their rolls; about 550 of those schools have children from the ages of five to 14, and the rest have children from the ages of 5 to 11.
The hon. Member for Ripon asked me, did I not think that children have been better catered for in small groups than in large groups of 150. That struck me as being really funny. A school of 150 children is quite a small school. It can be well organised, but a small school of 20 children cannot be organised at all, and for any Member of the House of Commons—whether he is an amateur educationist or whether he has tried to understand the problem—to say that one teacher must look after 20 to 50 children from the ages of five to 14; teach them everything, do all the administration in a poor building lacking every amenity, merely demonstrates that he has not studied the problem at all. In fact, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden did mean


that we should close the very small village schools; he is an educationist and knows the proper thing to do. The senior children must be taken further afield, from seven, eight or even nine villages, in order to give them a proper secondary education in rural surroundings.

Mr. York: Agreed, secondary education.

Mrs. Manning: If the children are taken from seven or eight villages and given a secondary education—whether in a modern, technical, grammar or multilateral school—they would get a very good education, because they could be taught in classes with children of their own age, with separate teachers for each age group. What is the position of our young children today? From what the hon. Gentleman says, one would think that no country child ever has to walk anywhere. In my constituency scores of children have to walk at least two miles to school, along bleak and desolate country roads, carrying little packets of dried sandwiches in their hands for their midday meal. Would it not be a very good thing to take an area covering perhaps four or five villages and have 150 children in a first-class school, with five or six teachers? Incidentally, teachers do not want to live in nunneries. Why should the teachers be told that they must live in one house? I never heard of such a thing. Anybody suggesting that, would soon have the National Union of Teachers on their track. Apparently the hon. Member for Ripon wants to put all the women teachers together in one house. At least, I presume he meant all the women teachers, because there are also men teachers. But perhaps he wants the men colleagues to five with the women teachers.
When taking these junior children from three or four villages and putting them in one school, it might be advisable to move only children from 7–11 leaving the infants and nursery children in the village. A very good use for these old village schools would be to turn them into first-class nurseries. At the present time large numbers of women in the rural areas are working in the fields, and they have to take their children with them in prams, leaving them under the shade of the hedges or trees while they perform agri-

cultural work so necessary at the moment. The 7's to 11's could be taken to school daily by transport; given a first-class meal at midday, in wet weather arrangements could be made for them to dry their boots and shoes, and they could be given all the advantages of children in urban areas.
I am sure if they will carefully think over their ideas, hon. Members opposite with whom I have sat on Committees dealing with rural affairs, will agree I am right. Nobody can visualise what is needed in these areas without a real understanding of the overall plan for the countryside. I ask the Committee to carry its mind back to the Gracious Speech at the beginning of this Session. Foreshadowing the Agriculture Bill, it was stated that the extended use of technical and scientific measures in agriculture demanded a higher type of education for both workers and fanners. If we are to do that—and I am quite sure it is essential, if agriculture in this country is to flourish—we must have schools in which children can be well taught by a sufficient number of properly trained teachers. They must have all the facilities and advantages which can be obtained in the towns; they must have a midday meal; and children who are below par and handicapped must be looked after. Remember, London spends about £3 10s. per head on handicapped children; the big county towns spend £1 10s. on handicapped children; but the county areas spend only 17s. 11d. on handicapped children. The rural areas have been denied all these things in the past, and it is time that somebody in this Committee stood up for education in the rural areas.
I hope very much that the Minister will pay regard to what the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said, about the dual system. The right hon. Member did a grand job of work in the Act, in bringing about agreement, between the two types of school in this country. I know some of the difficulty involved there, because I was a signatory to the concordat which was drawn up just before the Trevelyan Act. At the time of the Butler Act the Archbishop told us that we might expect 90 per cent. of our Church of England schools to be handed over. The position is very difficult today, because they do not know what


the schools will cost; they do not know if they can collect 50 per cent. of the cost and we do not want to lose any non-provided schools which might be controlled. Therefore, I think it would be a good thing if they could be given a little extra time in order to see whether they should hand their schools over or whether they could collect 50 per cent. of the cost of bringing them up to modern standards.
I am very sorry that my time has run out. I am always in the unfortunate position of being called late in the Debate and told that I must speak for only a short time, and I am a very loyal Member from that point of view. I do ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to pay very serious attention to the problems of the rural areas schools. Remember how they have been neglected in the past; do try to find out the truth about them, and lead the parents; to understand what are the best means of getting the best education this country has to offer for their own children.

7.58 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York), because I also wish to refer to rural education. I had intended to pay the Minister a tribute for a fine speech, but I must content myself with saying that I will pay him a special tribute next year if he will then tell us a little more about rural education. I know he had a very large subject to cover, but he did not mention rural education once during his speech. The only reference his predecessor made a year ago was to the effect that, "I am afraid the rural areas will have to wait again." That is why I am happy to be following the hon. Member for Epping on this question. I believe that the Minister of Education means to give the country children a fair deal. Even though it costs far more to give a country child the same chances and education as a town child, I believe the Ministry will give the country child a fair deal. I hope they will blazon that abroad, because it is most important that the country people should realise it.
I want to confine my remarks to one or two problems which have come my way in the country. Firstly, in regard

to H.O.R.S.A. huts, we are not to have one hut completed in my own area by 1st September, and I felt that the Minister was over-optimistic in his account. I think we can get on for the first three or four months, but we must have the huts by January in the Lindsey district. These huts are having priority, which is natural, but the Minister has mentioned the bulge in the birth rate and this is already causing even greater pressure on accommodation for younger children in some districts than the raising of the school leaving age. Huts for the older children must obviously have a high priority, but I hope the Minister will not shut his eyes entirely to the younger children. I wonder whether the opportunities in regard to temporary accommodation are really being taken advantage of as they should. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said, we are thinking of the bright chances of the future in the very difficult times of the present.
We may have to cut down our cloth very considerably, and try to make the best use of the things we already have. For instance, there is at Tattershall Thorp part of an aerodrome which my own local authority have been trying to take over as a temporary modern school for more than a year. They are continually having arguments with the Minister of Works in regard to the business of taking over on such questions as the sewage farm which goes with it. These things do not cut any ice with the fathers waiting to get their children educated. Fathers are not only paying for these things when they belong to the Ministry of Works, but they are also paying for the people who are arguing about whether or not they should be used for schools. I ask, therefore, that these departmental operations should be transacted a little more quickly, with less attention paid to good book-keeping, which, incidentally, cannot be good book keeping if it is so complicated.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the inspectorate. During the last year, the education authority in my district have received only two reports dealing with education, other than those which raise such questions as lavatory accommodation and so forth. I fully understand the difficulties which inspectors are finding, but it is essential that we should try


to get more manpower into this department. When there are only a few inspectors, they tend to visit the bad schools, which means that the headmasters of these schools come to fear these visits. A headmaster knows very well that only the bad schools are being inspected, and that is a bad thing. It is also extremely bad that the good schools should not be inspected and get a pat on the back. I am using my own education authority as an example, but I know that this sort of thing is happening in other parts of the country. My education authority has taken on two inspectors to carry out this work. I am not at all sure that this is a good thing. I will not develop the theme, because it is obvious that the inspectors should belong to the Minister—they provide him with the opportunity to keep in touch with what is going on. These inspectors should be liaison officers. Therefore, I am not happy about this tendency of education authorities to appoint their own inspectors. If these people are being paid for by the local authorities, and are on the spot, they might equally be on the staff of the Minister.
So far, I have dealt purely with administration, but before I finish I should like to refer to one of the main educational questions which is of very general importance. There are three essentials of education. We want good teachers, classes small enough to get the best out of the teachers, and the right sort of knowledge imparted. We cannot do much at the moment about the first two essentials, which leaves us with the third. It is difficult for a layman to find out much about the curriculum and the syllabus, in which a parent has considerable interest. I have had some knowledge of education myself, having had to make my own syllabus, produce my own textbooks and so on, but, as a father, I find it extraordinarily difficult to know what my children are being taught. We all ought to take an interest in this matter, because it is the aim of education to give pupils a background to enable them to face the difficulties of our times.
What I do not agree with is the belief that it is the divine privilege of teachers to dictate what shall or what shall not be taught. I agree that the teacher has a tactical right to say how a subject shall be taught, and, to some degree, what

shall be taught, but the strategic right must rest with the people of the country, and the only way that can be done is through the Minister. The only way he can get that knowledge is through the advice of his Advisory Council. The Advisory Council have just produced a booklet, entitled "The School and Life," which I have read with great care and interest. They have completely flinched from this problem. On page 113, we find this passage:
The impact of scientific thought on the older classical and Christian traditions has been the chief cause of the moral complexities of our day.
It might be said that everyone knows that. It is true, but we must do something about it. They take particular care in the last chapter to make it clear that they cannot come to agreement about what should be done, and I do not give them any credit for that. I would not have got credit in my service if I said, "I do not know what to do"; I should have been told to go back and find out. After all, it may be old fashioned, but there is one way, to concentrate a little more on the older classical and Christian tradition in teaching. That brings up the problem which has existed since education was first written about, the difficulty of teaching philosophy to a child who has had no experience of life, but this can be overcome at a later period and I ask the Minister to consider this problem in connection with county colleges and adult education. I also ask him to see whether this Advisory Committee cannot produce something better than they have produced so far, something more than telling us what we already know. The Minister might take a leaf from the book of some of the most successful wartime commanders by refusing to admit failure, by telling them they must go back and get down to the job of producing some sort of answer.
Unless we can find the answer to the problem we shall betray the belief which was held by so many people during the war. I noticed in my Service, astonishingly so, that I. was always coming into contact with people who wanted to know and talk about education, who felt a lack of the background which would enable them to cope with the difficulties they were up against. It was not technical education they wanted; it was something else they were grasping after, a spiritual under-


standing, which they had not been given. If the Minister will see that the people of this country have the opportunity of getting that background he will, indeed, go down to fame as one of our finest Ministers of Education.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I do not want to wander into the wider fields of education, as I should probably get lost if I did, and I shall try to confine myself to a path with which I am more familiar. I wish to intervene for only a short time to put to the Minister certain considerations based on a very long practical experience of what we now call the handicapped child but which, in my time, used to be known as the special school child. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to this matter in his opening remarks, as I am well aware not only of his interest but of the interest of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in this field of education.
The responsibilities imposed on local education authorities in regard to special provision are so wide and involved that, except in the case of the larger authorities, I am sure that they are unlikely, in their development plans to make effective provision unless they get from my right hon. Friend a strong lead and guidance of a detailed and technical character. There are in the Statutory Rules and Orders, 11 different types of children classified as requiring special educational treatment. Some of these involve educational methods, very highly specialised, using technical apparatus, and a very different approach from that employed for the ordinary child. It is in no critical spirit that I want to put some of these difficulties before my right hon. Friend for his consideration. Probably the most obvious of handicapped children are the blind and the deaf. In both these categories there are two serious deficiencies. It is required that these children shall be taught in special schools, and yet there is a great shortage of buildings and of teachers who have had the necessary training and have the required diplomas. What steps are being taken to ensure that every blind and deaf child is received into school with the minimum delay?
In my experience, I know of children who have been on the waiting list of these schools for more than two years. Every school has its waiting list, and to

enable these children to acquire a knowledge of Braille it is essential that they should enter the schools as early as possible. For the last 20 years, it has been a crying need to get earlier entry into these schools. I remember that at one time, although the statutory age of admission to schools for the blind was five years, the average age of admission over one year was 11.9 in a particular school, which means that the children were deprived of those early years of training which make such a tremendous difference to their development.
With regard to teachers, I do not suppose that there is a special school in the country at the moment which is fully staffed. I ask the Minister what encouragement is given to teachers to enter into the profession of the special school, particularly in regard to the deaf, where the wastage is only just made up by recruitment from the deaf department of Manchester University. These teachers are required to take special diplomas. We have heard a great deal about the word "incentive," and I am wondering whether the Minister would consider some form of incentive that would bring a greater improvement into this very highly-specialised form of education. The work is arduous and exceedingly technical, and it requires great gifts of patience and understanding. My experience of this type of work has confirmed my view that there are in the ordinary schools of this country a large number of children classified as dull or backward who are so labelled because it has not yet been discovered that they are suffering from some visual or aural disability, or possibly both. I ask the Minister what steps are being taken, for example, to find by group testing through the gramophone audiometer in the ordinary classes how many of the children are suffering from aural defects. Are our local education authorities encouraged to employ this means of detection, and how many do so?
In the schools in rural areas great as are the difficulties as regards the normal child, so much greater are they in regard to the handicapped child, and it is impossible in the rural schools for the teachers to manage the different types of children who come within the category of slight defects and who are supposed to be taken in the ordinary stride of the school. I


would like to know, in regard to the "hard of hearing" who may be taken in the ordinary schools, how far the Minister is co-operating with the Minister of Health in regard to the provision of individual aural aids under the new National Health Service Act. Are the parents to provide them or is the education authority to provide them? In any case, it is essential that they should be provided if the children are to remain in the normal schools and not taken into a residential special school.
I would also like to know what is the position with regard to the supply of teachers of lip-reading both for young people and adults. There is growing up in the country, almost in every county, as the facilities are becoming better known, a demand not only for general education but for specialised training in lip-reading. I am informed that the dearth of teachers in lip-reading is about 500, and very few local authorities are in any way able to meet this demand for this very effective form of alleviation of deafness. One in six of the population is suffering from some form of hearing defect. More and more these people are becoming conscious of the need for adequate teaching in this regard, and the local education authority ought to be able to supply that need. I am afraid that unless something drastic is done very soon that need will not be met.
I suggest that there is a great deal to be done in the field of research. There are as yet no sound methods of ascertaining intelligence from either the blind or the deaf. Is the Minister prepared to foster and subsidise research into these important subjects? There is the danger that nothing will be done in regard to the deaf, and there is the difficulty of lack of a responsive test for dull and backward children and difficulty also in regard to the certification of mental defects. It is essential that we devise adequate testing apparatus to find out as soon as possible what is the relative standard of intelligence grade.
I should like to see some research in the realm of suitable employment for those pupils who have gone through the secondary school for the deaf. I happen to be a governor of that school, and I look upon the future of those pupils with a great deal of anxiety. We are giving

them three or four years of extra education, but what is to become of them when they leave? Are they to revert to the manual occupations which they could have entered when they left the ordinary deaf school? What is before them? There is a great deal to be done in the field of discovery to find out suitable opportunities for those children. That is a problem which has been in the mind of special school teachers for many years.
There is one matter which concerns me very considerably and that is the question of the county college for the deaf. I must congratulate the Minister on his success in achieving the very desirable object which we had in mind when we got this college for the deaf. However, it will mean that deaf adolescents will have to attend as resident pupils. As there is only one of these colleges in the country, they will not be able to take, say, one day off a week from industry. They will have to go to the college for two or three months. Who is to be responsible for that time? They will be taken out of industry and they will lose their wages. It will be difficult to get their consent to go to this college in those conditions. I should like the Minister to give that aspect of the matter some attention.
I want to say a word on the matter of multiple defects. For many years I have been intensely interested in the problem of the deaf-blind. Fortunately this is a small problem, but it is acute. There are not many educable deaf-blind children in the country but they are there, and although the London County Council has been persuaded to accommodate children from seven years onwards, the vital years are not being covered. We want to get these children almost as soon as they can toddle and do what we can for them in order that they may develop. We have the glorious example of how that can be done in the person of Dr. Helen Keller. We should like to see every one of these deaf-blind children converted into Dr. Kellers. It is essential that a start should be made as early as possible. I should like to know how the Minister proposes to deal with that matter and also the question of multiple defects from epilepsy. All these defects are there, and they constitute a problem which is a vital one to a great many people. I urge the Minister, with that well known sympathy for the afflicted which he showed so well when he was


piloting through the House the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, to give this matter very real consideration. This subject is so inexhaustible that I feel there is a great deal more I could say, but true to my promise, I will end now with the hope that the Minister will give this matter all the consideration which it deserves, as I know he will.

8.25 p.m.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: In the ten minutes I am allowed I want to stress chiefly two subjects which were discussed by my right hon. Friend. While he was speaking about aphasic and spastic disorders in a special school, I felt that that was surely a matter for the medical profession rather than for educationists. They are evidently the appropriate authorities to deal with them, and my right hon. Friend is wasting time in trying to do something by educational methods when it is the medical aspect which should receive attention.
The other thing about which I wish to speak is the very critical condition of the national schools in face of the stampede of graduate teachers away from them when there is so much work for them to do there. I will give just this one small cross section of this flight. A certain grammar school, which I know well, lost 21 graduate teachers over a certain period. One-third went to independent schools where they received very much better pay and treatment—and I want to emphasise the question of treatment because it is not the remuneration which is the principal reason for the flight from the national school. The other two-thirds went to a most curious collection of pursuits, the British Council, the Church, administration and industry. One of them, an honours graduate of my university, after teaching science in the sixth form for six years, was receiving only £457 per annum. He is a born teacher, but he said that having a wife and two children he could not on that salary maintain his proper position as a school teacher in the sixth form. He went into industry and immediately received twice that remuneration.
The other day I had a letter from a high-school master in which he said that he had just lost his junior physics teacher, an honours graduate in science whose commencing salary under the Burnham

scale was £330 a year. He received a commencing salary of £900 a year when he left that school and went into industry. All of us who were present during the passage of the Education Act will remember a certain degree of consternation among the university Members at the announcement of the Burnham scale. The scale was considered again on 20th February, 1945, when a special Debate was brought on in the House. There are eight hon. Members representing universities in England and Wales, of whom six took part in that Debate and were absolutely unanimous in condemning the Burnham scale for graduates. I would remind the Committee that in 1944 a highly authoritative committee on the training of teachers, the McNair Committee, pressed the importance of recruiting university teachers in the national schools. They put forward two schemes, A and B. A concluded a report with this warning, that if the training of teachers in the national schools came to be divorced from the university, disaster must overtake the whole Act
I press the urgency of this matter, and the primary necessity of persuading, or otherwise influencing, the Burnham Committee to take steps to improve the position. Unless some immediate steps are taken, the whole of this class of teachers will disappear from these schools. It should be obvious that we cannot obtain competent science graduates unless we have capable science teachers, and that in their absence the Barlow Report cannot be implemented. I have the fear of my right hon. Friend being drawn aside from this, the main point. I admire his imperturbability, and his faculty of stonewalling. He has given me figures of emergency teachers and temporary teachers. There is one figure which I have failed to get out of him, and that is the number of graduate teachers who are comprised in the new draft to the schools. A year ago, there were 1,035 temporary teachers in the schools, but a few months later there were more than 5,900. Would my right hon. Friend tell me the present total of graduate teachers? Unless speedy action is taken in this direction I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will be disappointed with the results of the new Act.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: I would like to say how refreshing it was to mark the


enthusiasm and the enjoyment with which the Minister came to the Committee and asked for this Vote. We all noticed the relish with which he trotted out "H.O.R.S.A. and S.F.O.R.S.A.," and many must have felt that a good schoolmaster was lost when the Minister came to the House. I wondered whether the picture he painted today had not really too much of sunshine and too little of shade. We were all glad to hear the note of optimism, but I think he might at the same time have underlined some of the difficulties with which his Department will be faced in the next few months. We have all been hoping to see a steady expansion of this great Act through primary, secondary and further education, and the indications are that that development will be hampered, if it is not halted, for the time being, as a result of the economic difficulties through which this country is passing.
Possibly the Minister was justified in the optimism he showed on the figures he was able to produce to the Committee about the supply of teachers. I must say they came to me as a surprise. He said there is no question of our being short of teachers, and he was able to report that for the next few years he would get 10,500 after a two-year course, 11,600 after a one-year course, and presumably a number of graduates from the universities, with the result that, even with a retirement of 7,000 a year, there will be an annual increase of from 15,000 to 17,000 in his manpower. If he has his teachers, almost three-quarters of his battle is won. He can afford to be optimistic in spite of the financial and economic difficulties with which he will be faced, because the teachers are the core of his problem. He introduced one small point of interest when he told us there would be something like 2,500 what I would call "pupil-teachers" used for the time being while waiting to take their teachers' courses. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what it is proposed to pay these pupil teachers during the year they are waiting before going into training colleges.
I feel that the Minister passed too lightly over his problems in connection with building. He said they had never been a determining factor in education. He told us what is being done, but he might just as well have told us what

remains to be done, because that is an enormous task. Looking at London, one sees a 20 or 30 years' rebuilding plan urgently necessary before the ancient Victorian schools can be put into good order. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us on what basis the allocation of materials is made to his Ministry. Presumably there is a global total which is divided among the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the various Service Departments, and so on. As far as I know, we have never been given any idea what proportion of that total allocation is available for his Ministry, but if we knew that it would help us to support the view of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) that subdivisions of labour and materials should be allocated to local authorities and that they should be given fairly wide freedom in determining the priorities of buildings within their areas. That is essentially a local problem.
We were all glad to find that the Minister was prepared to face a future of expediency and making-do. It is clear that he will have to make-do in a good many areas in the carrying out of this Act. After all, palatial buildings are not needed for education. If they are light, airy and warm, we have the essentials. The Minister's development of his H.O.R.S.A. programme is an indication that he is prepared to face realistically the building problem in front of him. I would suggest to the Minister for his consideration that he will be faced with limitations of building programmes and development generally, but that education is not solely a matter of the schools. Can he use some of his financial resources, which will be unemployed because he cannot get men and materials, to encourage and subsidise organisations which can carry out education, not in an academic sense but in the sense of living education? I am thinking of bodies such as the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides or the Boys Clubs, which, with a little money for headquarters or accommodation, can be encouraged to do work for which the Ministry itself may find it difficult to get facilities.
Has he considered the great potentialities of the cinema clubs as educational centres? On Saturday mornings in London the children gather together in the cinemas waiting to be fed so to speak, with educational material. There are


good films shown in these cinema clubs, and there are poor films. What an amazing opportunity for the Board of Education to sponsor the production of really great educational films. What opportunities there are in the history of our own country to produce educational films not entirely of the dramatic type of "Henry V" but, for instance, the Roman Wall and the life of a Roman legion, which could be turned into an exciting film in which the young children in these large Saturday morning audiences would simply revel, and in the course of which they would learn their English history. [Interruption.] The choice can be made according to the taste of the audience, but I do not think that a young audience in the twentieth century is particularly interested in the political strife of 100 years ago.
I offer one suggestion to the Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) was able to show us today the sort of literature which he now has time to read. In my school days I would have called it a cross between a comic and a "blood." The Minister's literature presumably is "School and Life." I would suggest that after school they "swap," and that the Minister has a look at the sort of literature which is read by the boys and girls for whose future he is responsible, because it indicates their approach to life, and the way to get hold of the boys and girls is probably the realistic and vivid approach which the literature they read indicates.
I have talked about the need for realism, and I hope the Minister, in his Department, is approaching the problem of the development plans with the education authorities in a spirit of realism. I would apply that particularly to the development plan of the county of London. There, I fear, there is grave danger of a quite unreal educational programme being put up as an enormous facade which will never result in any practical consequence. The London County Council are proposing to go in wholesale for what they call multilateral schools of 2,000 children——

Mr. Eric Fletcher: It is contrary to fact to say that the London County Council are going in wholesale for multilateral schools containing 2,000 pupils. They are going in for a certain

number of multilateral schools, but not all of 2,000 pupils. They are of various sizes, some with as few as 600 children.

Mr. Linstead: I take my own borough of Wandsworth, which I know very well. In the London County Council plan for the borough of Wandsworth there are to be five 2,000-pupil schools—in that one London borough. I say that is bad education.

Mr. Gibson: Why?

Mr. Linstead: I will tell the hon. Member why. First, it is entirely unreal. It is unreal because the sites are not there, and are unlikely to be there, and it is extremely unlikely that in the next 20 years it will be possible to put up those gigantic places. The education is bad because a school of that kind can never be a community of its own with an organic relationship to the area in which it exists. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eton and Rugby."] They are boarding schools with a domestic life of their own. These are day schools, which are going to draw pupils from very wide areas, and they will have no relationship to the locality in which they are situated.
I wish to make a comparison between the multilateral and the mammoth school. We do not need a mammoth school of 2,000 pupils in order to have a multilateral school. I went to a multilateral school, which in those days was simply called a grammar school, and we had modern classics, and science. It was, in fact, a multilateral school, and there were 600 pupils. They got all the advantages of a multilateral education without the disadvantages of these enormous barracks or factories which the L.C.C. prefer to set up. We are entitled to ask from the Parliamentary Secretary for some expression of opinion from the Ministry as to their policy in regard to this proposal of the L.C.C.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I hesitate to intervene again, but I think the hon. Member is doing a disservice to London education by describing the schools the London County Council are proposing to build as factories or barracks.

Mr. Linstead: We are at least agreed at the moment that they are proposing to build them. A few moments ago we were


not even agreed on that. I wish to turn for a moment to a problem which has already been discussed during the Debate. That is the need, during the next decade, for encouraging more scientific and industrial research and training in this country. More and more this country has to live on its wits, instead of on its material wealth, and we are going to need more and more industrially trained personnel. If the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) had been here, I would gladly have entered into controversy with him on the amazing discourse he gave us today. He started with the sixth Book of the Aeneid and led us through the underworld of, it seemed to me, 100 years ago at the least. I think we must start, in discussing this question of technological and scientific education, on the basis that today there is no reason why we should not get, on a scientific basis, a fully liberal and thorough education, in the best sense of the term. We cannot cut out English or foreign languages, but if we take a subject such as chemistry, or biology, in the hands of the right teacher, dealt with in the right way, we have all the materials there for a full all-round education. I commend to the Minister in this connection the recent Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on certain problems of producing really good scientists.
Basically, the problem is that there has been competition between the technical colleges and the universities, and our old friend "parity of esteem" comes into the picture also. It appears unfair that a man should go through long courses of a high standard at a technical college, which in many cases is in every way the equivalent of a university, and find himself, at the end, presented with a diploma awarded by the college, whereas the man who has been more fortunate and has got into the neighbouring university, comes out with a degree. It is not merely a question of the piece of paper which he holds in his hand. A degree opens the door to research work, to higher degrees, to all sorts of better opportunities, both in education and in industry.
Therefore, I feel that there is a peculiar obligation on the Minister to use his influence with the universities—and with all respect to him, heaven forbid that he should ever take the universities under

his control—to persuade them to cast their mantle over their local technical schools or colleges. It is ridiculous that in a great city like Birmingham there should be practically no liaison between the great technical college there and Birmingham University. So one could go over a great deal of the country. He should also consider whether there are not a number of the great technical colleges which are now ripe for incorporation as universities. One can think of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, the Merchant Venturers' College, Bristol, and the Wedgewood Technical College, Burslem, and others—great colleges which are, to all intents and purposes, ripe for incorporation as universities.

Mr. K. Lindsay: Is the hon. Member suggesting that these colleges should have the constituent properties of a university, and should be made so in advance of Nottingham, Leicester and Exeter?

Mr. Linstead: I am not saying that there may not be an intermediate stage of university college status. Hull, Exeter, Leicester and Southampton are well on the way now to incorporation as universities. There is the alternative of encouraging the University of London to extend their interest in technology. If they were to set up a faculty of technology, and to extend the external degree system within the faculty of technology as widely as they have done in the faculty of science, it would go some way to solve the problem to which I have been alluding.
I conclude by returning to what I think is the essential of any sound educational system, that is, the element of freedom. We are in for a period of contraction which will hit the Ministry of Education, as it will hit every other Ministry. That will carry with it the implications of increased control from Belgrave Square over activities throughout the whole of the educational field. Within that increased control lie the seeds of difficulty and frustration for local education authorities, for governors and for teachers. We all know the boast of a French Minister of Education that at any particular time, he knew what every child in every French school was doing. That, as we see it, means death in education. I would plead with the Minister, and I am sure that his own human sympathies would lie in the same direction, to give as great a freedom as


he possibly can to local authorities, governors, headmasters and teachers. Let them experiment; do not control them too tightly over the expenditure of every penny that passes through their hands; do not impose too rigid national examination standards. Above all, make it easy for the man and woman of character and individuality to find a satisfying life in teaching. When this period of contraction comes, the Minister will have to fight for his priorities. I am sure that he will have the backing of every hon. Member in his endeavour to get high in the list of priorities. As a broad national policy, I hope we will all agree that the last cuts to be made should be those which fall on the young.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Cove: This Debate has been conducted under very great difficulties. There is the shadow of the world situation, which impresses itself upon us and there is also the difficulty caused by the fact that so many hon. Members want to speak. I hope to take up only a few minutes and I will curtail my remarks as much as possible. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what is his fundamental attitude to the whole of our education system, in this sense: does the Ministry still maintain its attitude towards the tripartite system? Is it still in the position that it was when "The Nation's Schools" was issued. I am not quite clear about this matter. This is a very popular document.

Mr. G. Thomas: What is the document?

Mr. Cove: "New Secondary Education." There are lovely pictures in it, grand pictures. But I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether or not the general outlook is the same in this document as it was in "The Nation's Schools." I would prefer very much that the Ministry of Education, instead of publishing photographs of the lovely, beautiful schools, which are the exception in our English education system, should print photographs of what actually exists. What actually exist up and down the country are filthy insanitary buildings, black-listed schools which have not been touched since Trevelyan occupied the post now held by the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that the main job of the Minister of Education in a Labour Government is to see that the whole of the primary system is improved and that all the amenities

are provided. I would like to know whether or not that is true. I am afraid that, as I follow the speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary, I find him deeply tied to the old classical tradition and that he is somewhat unresponsive to the needs of the new modern world.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): Good gracious!

Mr. Cove: I will give the Parliamentary Secretary a chance to reply. I want him to reply in a very categorical manner. Does he or does he not agree to the tripartite system? It is a wicked system to segregate children at the age of n and assess their ability and what special aptitudes they have at that age. To try to do so is absolutely fantastic, and that is what I understand is still the sort of outlook—I will not use the word philosophy—of the Ministry of Education. I hope that we shall have a pronouncement tonight from the Parliamentary Secretary that they only want the local education authorities to expand with the multilateral schools. I want from the Minister a lead—a lead declaring that Labour Party policy is for the multilateral schools. There is a magnificent statement about the multilateral school in the second report of the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland. I would like the Committee to hear what it says. It refers to the tripartite scheme.
The whole scheme rests on an assumption that each teacher and psychologist alike must challenge—that children of 12 sort themselves out neatly into three categories, to which these three types of school correspond. It is difficult enough to assess general ability at that age; how much harder to determine specific bents and aptitudes with the degree of accuracy that would justify this threefold classification? Status does not come with the attaching of a name or by a wave of the administrative wand, and the discussion to date has left the position of the modern school neither defined nor secure.
What is the policy of the Ministry towards the modern school? Is it going to give children in the modern school the same amenities and opportunities as apply to the grammar schools? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, when? Are we going to deny the children in the modern schools the opportunity of taking the same examinations as the grammar schools? I would like to have an answer to that. Are we going to give them the same


freedom in that respect as exists with the grammar schools? I would like to know.
I wish I could have entered this Debate earlier, because, as a matter of fact, education is a very fundamental service, not only as far as the economic prosperity of this country is concerned, but as far as the maintenance of democracy is concerned, and democracy depends in the last analysis, on the education of the common people of this country, and the education of the common children of this country is to be found, or 90 per cent. of it, in a modern secondary school. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) put his Bill on the Statute Book—a very great effort. It has got to be fulfilled and made realistic by our people in office. I want to know from the Minister what is the policy of the Government in relation to the modern secondary school?

9.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): I have 25 minutes in which to reply to a great number of points which have been raised in the course of this Debate, and I trust that hon. Members will not think me discourteous if I attempt to answer only a few of the many matters raised. Some of the answers, I could not give without consultation and reflection, and others, quite frankly, I am unable to answer at this moment without my book; I simply do not know the facts, I fear, therefore, that I have made a selection, and I hope to stick to it during my reply. I, too, deplore the fact that in a Parliamentary year we have the opportunity for only one lengthy Debate on education such as today, and I add my protest to that of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) and the other hon. Members who have mentioned this point.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) raised a number of points, and I will try to take them scriatim. He mentioned the fact that bricks were available, and that, therefore, the Minister should make it priority No. I to get the bricks turned into schools. But we know that bricks, even though they may be stacked in the yards, are merely one of the problems. There is the grave shortage of cement, and, in many areas, of labour. The right

hon. Gentleman referred to the inspectorate, as did other hon. Members in the course of the Debate. I am happy to have the opportunity of giving some figures in connection with this question. In 1945, the inspectorate was, approximately 300 in number; in 1947, it is about 440, and, in 1948, it will rise to 500. We at the Ministry recognise, and, indeed, the inspectorate itself recognises, that its real job is in the schools. There has been too much administrative work for the inspectors to do, but that work is diminishing. - Only this week I had the advantage of going to an inspectors' course at Wrabness, in Essex, where a number of inspectors were gathered together, not only to instruct, but also to learn the art of school camping, a most important part of the recreational work under the 1944 Act. There are also other courses which inspectors run, and which they attend.
The danger of the shortage of women teachers has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas), and others. I have the honour to be the chairman of the interim committee which is considering this problem, and we hope to be able to advise the Minister on the whole question of the recruitment of women for teaching, and their distribution in the teaching profession. It is, however, at this stage, that one can point out that certain emergency training colleges will, in the coming two years, be turned over specifically for the purpose of training women teachers, not only, as at present under the Emergency Training Scheme, in one-year courses, but also in the usual two-year courses.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked for certain figures in connection with school milk and school meals. In August, 1946, school milk was made free of charge. The percentage of children having milk in the grant-aided schools jumped from 72 to 92. Since then, as he suggested, it has fallen back—perhaps the novelty has warn off—but only to 88½ per cent. In numbers, the increase is from 3,370,00g in June, 1946, to 4,300,000 in June, 1947. As regards school dinners, the number fed is now 2,350,000, which is 48½ per cent. of the number of children in attendance. The increase during 1946 was in the neighbourhood of 400,000, which was almost a record. Since the end of the war much


progress has been made, although we are the first to admit that it falls a good deal short of what we hoped for. I am afraid I cannot pursue other figures in connection with these two matters, but I hope it will be agreed that, on the whole, we have been successful in milk provision and in the provision of school meals.
Figures were requested in connection with the size of classes. May I give a few comparative figures to clinch the matter? In 1938, classes of over 50 numbered 2,100. In 1946, they had risen to 3,823. The provisional figures for this year show a reduction, in classes of over 50, to 1,975. In 1938, classes of over 40, senior or secondary, were 3,950. In 1946 they had risen to 5,101, but in 1947 we are down to 2,807—again, provisional figures. As my right hon. Friend has said, we believe that the reduction in the size of classes need not wait for the classrooms which we know are eminently desirable. Improvisation can still take place, and in any case, so far as the supply of teachers is concerned, we can use any so-described surplus teaching population to help in the teaching of the larger classes where they still exist. Going about the country as I do, I have seen innumerable examples of how well, even in a handicraft class, with 20 or even fewer boys and girls, the provision of an extra teacher, or in some cases two teachers, can assist in fomenting the right spirit in the class and helping forward the work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) drew attention to the extremely important question of university awards' after the closing down of the Further Education and Training Scheme, and I was very glad indeed that in the course of his remarks he laid such emphasis upon the importance of those who are interested in the arts as distinct merely from the specialists whom we have learned to respect, and rightly so, so much during the years of national emergency in the scientific field. We are aware of the very interesting figures which he mentioned in the course of his speech; but I would remind him of something which he already knows, but which he did not mention, and that is the fact that the Further Education and Training Scheme is making up a six years' leeway and, therefore, it is fair to say that at the moment and in the immediate future there is a breathing

space in which to consider what will be the future of the training scheme proposals.
Then, too, the figures which he gave with respect to the increase in the number of State scholarships, the number of technical scholarships and major awards, are, after all, only annual figures, and it may well be that next year the Ministry will decide that those figures will, in many instances, have to be appreciably increased; but I want my hon. Friend to understand that we have this problem very much to the fore, and we realise that we shall soon have to make up our minds what will take the place of the Further Education and Training Scheme.
I now come to the vexed question of the grammar schools, which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The problem was mentioned in particular by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities and the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). I would like to know who is supposed to be attacking the grammar schools. Is it the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, or the officials at the Ministry of Education? Is it the National Union of Teachers? What group is attacking the grammar schools? Surely, some members of the staffs of grammar schools are getting extremely touchy? There is no question about it—there is ample proof in a speech I had the honour myself of making at the annual conference of the Association of Assistant Masters, at Blackpool on 2nd January last—that we have emphasised again and again that we must maintain the highest possible academic traditions in the grammar schools. I have myself said up and down the country—and my right hon. Friend has done the same thing in much more effective terms than I have—in speech after speech that the nation cannot afford at any time in its history, particularly now, to do without the finest trained brains it possesses, from whichever class of society those brains come.
Surely, we can, now and again, suggest that the grammar schools may change in certain respects? Surely, it is possible to suggest that there are two ways of training men of equal status—that there is the way of book learning, always absolutely essential; but that there is also the way of activity? I should have


thought that after study in the classroom, learning from the reading of arithmetical text-books, one could go for a period into the woodwork room, and learn more significantly the importance of the arithmetical conundrums one had been doing. I cannot for the life of me see whence this attack on the standards of the grammar schools is coming. Surely, we can from time to time suggest that possible changes can take place. It is significant in my experience that some of the grammar schools, and the younger members of the staffs of the grammar schools, have not only themselves changed, but are changing, and are in agreement with many of the views put forward that certain changes can take place, even in the timetables of the old established, traditional grammar schools up and down the country. It is after all a very peculiar state of affairs that we have in grammar schools four or five classical masters and have only two or three for the teaching of modern languages? Surely, we can suggest now and again that certain changes may be of inestimable value?
The fact is that we have had university education for far too long, for far too few. That, surely, is the crux of the whole graduate position today. In other words, the grammar school education has been extremely successful. The grammar schools have shown the nation that in all kinds of professions the expert graduate is required; and now, in all kinds of professions, they are asking for more specialists, graduates from the universities. Here we are without the number of graduates to go round; here we are without the number of university places to take in all those specialists we require under modern conditions. That, indeed, is the crux of the shortage of graduates in grammar schools. There is no doubt about it, it is an extremely urgent and an extremely serious problem, and my right hon. Friend and I are very well aware that every measure must be taken to get graduate specialists into the schools in order to enable a greater number of graduate specialists to come out of the schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff had many interesting things to say about school meals. May I add my tribute to what he said about all that

the teachers are doing in helping to make this school meals service a success under extremely difficult handicaps? To go into a school and see there in a classroom, as my hon. Friend said, the cutlery and crockery, which are far from being of a very high standard, laid out on the rough tables from which our school children still take their midday meals, is to know it is not good enough. We intend that the school meals service shall be a contribution to the life of the school day, and a contribution, like every other activity in the schools, to helping to produce that sense of style which, I think, is the hallmark of the young person leaving school who intends to develop into an educated adult.
There is, it is true, a real crisis in regard to infant school teaching, and, as my right hon. Friend said, we are preparing to meet this serious deficiency. This means that immediate methods have to be employed to persuade the girls in the fifth and sixth forms to take an interest in infant teaching, and to convince them that the teaching of infants is as highly specialised a job as teaching the translation of Racine for the higher schools certificate. I would add, in this connection—because a question has been asked—underlining what my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, that there is no question whatever of letting down those men who have been accepted for training as teachers. They are to be trained, and we shall be able to use them in all manner of ways in the wide educational field which the Education Act, 1944, now makes possible.

Mr. K. Lindsay: The Parliamentary Secretary is not denying, is he, that at the present moment there is a deficiency in both infant and grammar schools?

Mr. Hardman: I have suggested that there is a deficiency in the grammar schools, and I have also suggested that there is a deficiency of infant teachers in infant schools, so I have admitted what my hon. Friend requires me to admit.
I was rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) suggested that some of my ideas might be too traditional and not in accordance with modern thought. Frankly, I have usually been criticised the other way about. I have always suggested that what I want to give the


children is a sense of achievement. If we have a wide curriculum from which the children can choose, they will find something they can do well. To leave school able to do something really well is the finest contribution that can be made to the life of the adolescent.
The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) and the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) drew attention to the village schools. I must say, I was delighted with the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping gave to the hon. Member for Ripon in regard to rural education. No one questions the value of the village teacher. Three or four weeks ago, I went to a village school in Norfolk and encountered a very fine example of that type of teacher. He is still helping the farmers with all their area and weight calculations; he is instructing the young farmers' clubs, and he is helping the whole neighbourhood in a hundred and one different ways. Such a man is invaluable in the life of our countryside, and the happy, informal atmosphere of many village schools is of immense value in moral and social training.
Let us never forget, however, the deplorable condition of so many rural school buildings. When I visit schools I make my own reports on the school buildings. In certain rural areas—and, after all, it is the rural committees who are suggesting the closing of so many of these schools—there are scores of school buildings which were erected before 1870. In the last few weeks I have seen a dozen schools which were built between 1800 and 1815, and they are still in use, with the buildings unchanged. Let me quote from one report which I made on school B, as I called it:
The school was re-organised in the spring of this year; there are 35 children, and a young teacher just out of college has started this term. When last visited, in February, the headmaster was virtually single-handed; he had part-time help in the afternoon, but it was so incompetent as to be worse than none—with 45 children from 5 to 14 years of age. The work was very poor. There is no artificial lighting at all. The playground wall has been broken down, leaving a wide and now generally used access to the school. It has been like this for many years. Neither of the boys' closets have seats. The glass in both doors to the playground is broken; the playground surface is completely broken.
I do so agree with what the hon. Lady the Member for Epping had to say about playgrounds; sometimes they are not even

there in our rural areas. That was a denominational school. Finally, I should like to say something on the very interesting point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), concerning the old question of visual aids.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not going to refer to the other important matters relating to the voluntary schools at this stage?

Mr. Hardman: On another occasion, perhaps. The Ministry have certain visual units, and are planning the production of some 20 films of an educational nature. There have been four of these films produced—"The Beginning of History," "Instruments of the Orchestra," "Houses in History" and "Local Studies." Then, as hon. Members know, the Ministry have set up two committees, which are investigating the teacher and production side of the use of films in schools. These committees have just produced an interim programme of about 100 visual projects suggested by the teachers themselves, and we are extremely grateful to the producers, teachers and local authorities for one more very fine example of co-operation in education.
Hon. Members have raised, not before its time in a Debate of this kind, the fundamental question of the purpose of education. It has been described as the necessity for producing character in the child. How is that character to be produced. May I make my own contribution in an attempt to answer that question? It is that the schools of today, made easier in the far better schools of tomorrow, should give our children the precision and accuracy which come with the teaching of science, and the profound satisfaction which comes to all of us when we command some technical skill and are capable of fine manual achievement. We are determined to see that the whole pageantry of the arts is there for the pupils to select, so that they may gain constant refreshment of the spirit from the whole world of the arts. To me, the most important thing of all, and it is what we need most in the world to take us along the road to achieve spiritual sanity, is the coming together, as the 1944 Act suggests, at the beginning of each school day, in that act of corporate worship. This dignified quiet, unhurried period, to which all pupils and teachers alike contribute


in prayer, music and reading, is as important to the life of a school as the highest academic teaching to be found anywhere in the school timetable. Never was there a time when our people were so "perplexed with contrarieties." The teachers, by their insistence on the essential need for building up character, have all along refused to yield up" moral questions in despair." In the implementing of the 1944 Act with energy and vision, we want the storm ridden sky "to ripen into a steady morn."

Mr. R. A. Butler: I wish to state the attitude of the Opposition in regard to the outstanding Votes which will shortly be put. It has frequently been the custom in the past to oppose these. Votes, but I rise to say that on this occasion we propose to follow the procedure we adopted last year. This must not be taken necessarily as a precedent for the future when, we trust, some Votes may be regrouped so that we may be able to vote against those to which take violent objection, but which we cannot vote against now because they are included in Classes which would necessitate voting against subjects with which we are in agreement.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £117,117,400, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Education for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, namely—


Class IV., Vote 1, Ministry of Education
£91,185,535


Class VII., Vote 6, Public Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £225,275)
£25,931,865



£117,117,400"

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the order of the House this day, forthwith to put severally the Questions,

"That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, the Navy, Army and Air Services be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates."

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947–48

CLASS I

"That a sum, not exceeding £8,680,746, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
House of Lords
56,388


2.
House of Commons
552,192


3.
Registration of Electors
216,000


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments (including a Supplementary sum of £99,587)
1,709,398


5.
Ministry of Defence
264,109


6.
Privy Council Office
18,227


7.
Privy Seal Office
7,370


8.
Charity Commission
39,817


9.
Civil Service Commission
292,650


10.
Exchequer and Audit Department
222,290


11.
Government Actuary
26,153


12.
Government Chemist
100,914


13.
Government Hospitality
33,000


14.
The Mint
90


15.
National Debt Office
3,582


16.
National Savings Committee
933,900


17.
Overlapping Income Tax Payments
700,000


18.
Public Record Office
39,248


19.
Public Works Loan Commission
90


20.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
15,000


21.
Royal Commissions, etc.
132,000


22.
Secret Service
1,500,000


23.
Tithe Redemption Commission
90


24.
Treasury Chest Fund
6,047


25.
Miscellaneous Expenses
1,404,381


25A
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
38,060


26.
Scottish Home Department
369,750




£8,680,746"

CLASS II

"That a sum, not exceeding £35,008,866, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


2. Diplomatic and Consular Establishments, etc.
6,183,785


3. British Council
1,613,000


4. United Nations
100


4A International 'Refugee Organisation
1,425,000

£


5. Commonwealth Relations Office (formerly Dominions Office)
104,165


6. Commonwealth Services (formerly Dominion Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £10,000)
342,615


7. Overseas Settlement
84,880


8. Colonial Office
449,305


9. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
2,592,164


10. West African Produce Control Board
1,807,235


11. Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)
5,510,500


12. Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)
227,900


13. India and Burma Services (including a Supplementary sum of £110,730)
14,373,252


14. Imperial War Graves Commission
294,965



£35,008,866"

CLASS III

"That a sum, not exceeding £20,258,755, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Home Office
1,231,805


2.
Broadmoor Crimina Lunatic Asylum
107,440


3.
Police, England and Wales
10,675,515


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
2,780,687


5.
Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000)
1,409,900


6.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc
56,695


7.
County Courts, etc.
311,408


8.
Land Registry
90


9.
Public Trustee
64,300


10.
Law Charges
291,568


11.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
21,940


Scotland


12.
Police
2,117,270


13.
Prisons
350,191


14.
Approved Schools, etc.
152,000


15.
Scottish Land Court
6,145


16.
Law Charges and Courts of Law (including a Supplementary sum of £1,500)
68,747


17.
Register House, Edinburgh
90

Ireland
£


18. Northern Ireland Services
2,980


19. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
13,890


20 Irish Land Purchase Services
596,094



£20,258,755"

CLASS IV

"That a sum, not exceeding £29,353,524 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


2.
British Museum
150,353


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
118,386


4.
Imperial War Museum
26,183


5.
London Museum
7,382


6.
National Gallery
36,248


7.
National Maritime Museum
14,475


8.
National Portrait Gallery
10,409


9.
Wallace Collection
14,463


10.
Scientific Investigation, etc. (including a Supplementary sum of £10,250)
900,585


11.
Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
6,560,000


12.
Broadcasting
9,450,000


Scotland


13.
Public Education
12,042,080


14.
National Galleries
17,982


15.
National Library
4,978




£29,353,524"

CLASS V

"That a sum, not exceeding £256,102,492, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1.
Ministry of Health
57,071,800


2.
Board of Control
186,242


3.
Registrar-General's Office
285,310


4.
Ministry of Labour and National Service (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000,000)
19,849,000


5.
Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
750,000


6.
Ministry of National Insurance
63,374,000


7.
Assistance Board
28,850,000


8.
National Insurance Audit Department
101,740

£


9.
Friendly societies Registry
33,680


10.
Widows,' Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions
74,025,000


11.
Ministry of Town and Country Planning
800,000


Scotland



12.
Department of Health
10,712,328


13.
Board of Control
22,502


14.
Registrar-General's Office
40,890




£256,102,492"

CLASS VI

"That a sum, not exceeding £137,887,430, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1.
Board of Trade
24,969,350


2.
Services in Development Areas (including a Supplementary sum of £75,000)
10,730,000


3.
Financial Assistance in Development Areas
451,500


4.
Export Credits
90


5.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
21,000


6.
Ministry of Fuel and Power
3,211,200


7.
Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
36,813


8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
6,437,014


9.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £5,175,010)
37,643,010


10.
Surveys of Great Britain, etc.
1,056,920


11.
Forestry Commission
3,356,000


12.
Development Fund
400,000


13.
Ministry of Transport
2,142,300


14.
Roads, etc.
20,555,000


15.
Mercantile Marine Services
967,485


16.
Ministry of Civil Aviation
16,159,500


17.
Development Grants
19,980


18.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
2,318,289


19.
State Management Districts
90


20.
Clearing Offices (including a Supplementary sum of £11,949)
12,039


Scotland


21.
Department of Agriculture
1,665,926


22.
Department of Agriculture (Food Production Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £400,000)
4,022,000

£


23.
Fisheries
454,924


24.
Herring Industry
357,000




£137,887,430"

CLASS VII

"That a sum, not exceeding £27,037,433, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1.
Ministry of Works
5,305,400


2.
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain
481,390


3.
Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £145,000)
606,280


4.
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
97,885


5.
Osborne
29,245


7.
Public Buildings Overseas
1,095,900


8.
Royal Palaces
229,800


9.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
355,725


10.
Miscellaneous Works Services
3,661,295


11.
Rates on Government Property
6,650,735


12.
Stationery and Printing
6,052,733


13.
Central Office of Information
2,317,700


14.
Peterhead Harbour
31,000


15.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
122,345



£27,037,433"

CLASS VIII

"That a sum, not exceeding £66,144,330, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates namely:



£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
170,330


2. Ministry of Pensions
62,294,000


3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
780,000


4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
2,900,000



£66,144,330"

CLASS IX

"That a sum, not exceeding £43,263,942, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which


will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
36,260,000


2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
7,003,942



£43,263,942"

CLASS X

"That a sum, not exceeding £290,611,016, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Ministry of Supply
35,500,000


2.
British Supply Office in the United States of America
252,000


3.
Ministry of Food
173,424,216


4.
Ministry of Transport (War Services)
38,681,900


5.
Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services)
7,350,000


6.
Home Office (War Services)
15,551,100


8.
United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration
5,000


9.
Advances to Allies, etc.
17,250,000


10.
War Damage Commission
1,036,300


10A
Flood Distress Relief
1,000,000


11.
Scottish Home Department (War Services)
560,500




£290,611,016"

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1947–48

"That a sum, not exceeding £115,270,675, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:



£


1. Customs and Excise
5,052,300


2. Inland Revenue
11,800,375


3. Post Office
98,418,000



£115,270,675"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1947–48

"That a sum, not exceeding £109,712,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of

March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:



£


5.
Educational Services
634,000


6.
Scientific Services
6,185,000


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
575,000


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:




Section I.—Personnel
24,321,000



Section II.—Matériel
20,494,000



Section III.—Contract Work
30,292,000


9.
Naval Armaments
12,645,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
8,353,000


12.
Admiralty Office
4,547,000


14.
Merchant Shipbuilding, etc.
1,666,000




£109,712,000"

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1947–48

"That a sum, not exceeding £148,018,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:



£


3. War Office
2,856,000


4. Civilians
43,813,000


5. Movements
53,400,000


7. Stores
38,500,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
9,449,000



£148,018,000"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1947–48

"That a sum, not exceeding £67,742,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:



£


2.
Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (to a number not exceeding 60,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and a number not exceeding 12,000, all ranks, for the Auxiliary Air Force)
800,000


3.
Air Ministry
3,433,000


4.
Civilians at Outstations
17,625,000


5.
Movements
13,496,000


6.
Non-Technical Supplies
22,438,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
7,432,000


10.
Non-Effective Services
2,518,000



£67,742,000"

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER the Chair]

Resolved:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, the sum of £1,525,682,403 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (New Zealand) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 30th June.
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Guiana) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th June.
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Cyprus) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th June.
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th June.
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Northern Rhodesia) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th June."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Seychelles) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th June."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I feel sure that the Financial Secretary would like to give us some information on the amount of relief that will be given, first, so far as the taxpayers of this country are concerned, and, secondly, so far as

these Islands are concerned. They are not very wealthy Islands. I feel, therefore, that there must be some reason for bringing forward these Orders, and it would be useful if we could have a word of explanation. I think that the House generally would like some information. It would be a novelty at any rate if we could hear something about any proposed reliefs. That is why, with considerable respect, I ask the Financial Secretary to give us some information on a part of the British Empire which is occasionally neglected by us, but which is not going to be neglected tonight.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As the House will have gathered, this is one of seven Orders which we are asking the House to approve tonight to bring into operation double taxation agreements with these territories. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was not quite correct when he said it would be a novelty to have one of these explained. We have had them explained so often—they have all more or less followed the same pattern—that I thought it would be a waste of the time of the House to offer to explain them unless someone asked for some observations to be made. We are making these agreements with a number of Dominions, Colonies and foreign countries in turn, and it is quite impossible for me to say how much relief is involved. Quite frankly that is not the point in making them; they are being made generally not only with the Dominions and with other countries like the United States, but with the Colonies, and even if they only help a few people it is well worth making one of these agreements.
As I have said, they follow the pattern of the agreements made with the Dominions and the U.S.A., which only differ from those made with the Colonies in the treatment given to pensions of Government servants. In the agreements with the United States, Canada, and South Africa these were taxed only by the Government who paid the pension. In the Australian and New Zealand agreements they are taxed only in the country of residence of the recipient. In these Colonial agrements they are going to be taxed by the paying Governments in all cases, but they can also be taxed in the country where the recipient lives. Where a person is taxed twice in that way, the


United Kingdom Inland Revenue will allow credit for what has been paid in respect of Colonial taxes.

Mr. Keeling: Will not the effect of some of these double taxation agreements with the Colonies be that the present liability to pay tax to the United Kingdom will become a liability to pay tax to a colony? If that is so, will not tax reserve certificates which have been accumulated to pay United Kingdom tax become in some cases unusable? Is it proposed to make some agreement so that such tax reserve certificates can be used in the colonies instead of in this country?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am afraid I do not follow the point being made by the hon. Gentleman. Is he referring to postwar credits?

Mr. Keeling: No. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman knows what a tax reserve certificate is. I am saying that tax reserve certificates which have been accumulated in order to pay tax in the United Kingdom will become unusable because the tax will not be payable in the United Kingdom under this agreement, but to the Colony. Therefore, is it contemplated that some arrangement shall be made with the colonies that these tax reserve certificates should become available in the colonies?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If injustice of that kind arose, steps would be taken to regularise the position and to see that no hardship was incurred by the individual because, on account of this agreement, he failed to realise tax reserve certificates.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Seychelles) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th June.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Releif (Taxes on Income) (Trinidad) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th June.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — REGULATION OF PAYMENTS (ORDERS)

9.46 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre:: I beg to move,

That the Regulation of Payments (General) (No. 3) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1483), dated 12th July 1947, a copy of which was presented on 16th July, be annulled.
In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your Ruling on two points—first, whether we might take at the same time the two following Prayers on the Order Paper——
That the Regulation of Payments (Sweden) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No 1497), dated 14th July 1947, a copy of which was presented on 16th July, be annulled.
and
That the Defence (Finance) (Definition of Sterling Area) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1413), dated 7th July 1947, a copy of which was presented on nth July be annulled.
and, secondly—the point which I have submitted to you privately—whether, since some of the Orders could not be debated because a further consolidation Order was put down, we might debate that particular Order and all the Orders arising from it in addition to those which actually appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: If it is for the general convenience of the House, I am quite prepared to suggest that these Orders might be taken together. As regards the second point, I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that I gave a rather special Ruling about this, and the Debate can be wider than is usual on the consolidation Order.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that a more opportune moment could have been chosen for presenting this Prayer, because in the Press today we have seen reports of the last drawing on the American loan which leaves us with only £250 million. We are told that the recent drawings are entirely due to convertibility, and that whereas the adverse balance of trade is in the neighbourhood of £50 million a month, our drawings in respect of the loan are now on the average £200 million. It is quite apparent that there is some grave leakage taking place between what we actually need for ourselves and what we are forced to draw by our commitments. We on this side of the House would suggest as our first cause for inquiry the fact that when the Government are faced with a problem of this nature—and when they admit on every possible occasion that it is our hard currency


resources which stand between us and starvation and that without them we could not obtain even the ordinary materials we need for our everyday work—to have these liabilities imposed upon us under the orders we are discussing tonight is something which any Government must be prepared to face and justify before this House.
We would go further and say, with deep respect, that a Government which is prepared to enter into these agreements—as will be shown in the course of this Debate, during which a dozen separate agreements are to be mentioned—which vitally affect the economic welfare of this country, refusing to allow any time for their consideration but in fact taking steps to ensure that they shall not be debated unless they are raised as they have been tonight on a Prayer, and a Government, moreover, which justifies these agreements and put them into practice, is guilty of behaviour which is un worthy of a Government appealing to the nation for an over-all economic effort.
We suggest to the Government, first, that when, as I hope to show and as my hon. Friends will show, these commitments were entered into, commitments which are far beyond anything which the public of this country realise, not to afford this House any opportunity of hearing from the Financial Secretary or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer reasons why those agreements had been entered into or any justification of them, is putting a burden upon the Opposition which we should be the last to bear. It is surely making us, not what we should be, people designed, perhaps by accident and perhaps by fortune, to look after the job of opposing His Majesty's Government, but, in the circumstances which are imposed upon us, the watchdogs of the public interest.
Before we discuss these orders we must go back for one moment to the terms which were imposed upon us by the Anglo-American Financial Agreement. That is the basis of the situation in which we find ourselves today. In my judgment which we may wish to pass upon His Majesty's Government, we must realise what we undertook, under that Agreement. If the House would look at Articles 8 and 10 of that Agreement, they will find what we undertook. Perhaps I

might read from Article 8, paragraph 2, which is as follows:
The Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom agree that not later than one year after the effective date of this Agreement, unless in exceptional cases a later date is agreed upon after consultation, they will impose no restriction on the payments and transfers for current transactions.
If one looks at Article 10 one finds there:
The Government of the United Kingdom intends to make arrangements with the countries concerned therein "—
I would call the attention of the House to the phrase which will come in later—
varying according to the circumstances of each case for an early settlement covering the sterling balances accumulated. The settlement with the sterling areas will be on the basis of I dividing the accumulated balances into three categories;"—
again I call the attention of the House to these words—
(a), balances to be released to assist convertibility into any currency for current transactions; (b), balances to be similarly released by instalments over a period of years beginning in 1851; and (c) balances to be adjusted as a contribution to the settlement of war and postwar indebtedness and in recognition of the benefits which the countries concerned might be expected to gain from such a settlement. The Government of the United Kingdom will make every endeavour to secure an early completion of this agreement.
That article puts upon His Majesty's Government a very definite task. In the obligations they undertook under the Bretton Woods Agreement and the International Monetary Fund, they have to try to focus those obligations. Article 19 of that agreement, lays down exactly what current transactions should be and makes it clear that any current transaction entered into for the purposes of trade is to be one for which His Majesty's Government must be responsible in convertible currency. That is the situation with which His Majesty's Government were faced when they tried to put this agreement into practice.
As regards blocked sterling—which is a matter very dear to the heart of this House—His Majesty's Government had a very clear duty. They were told they had to do three things: one, to make a certain percentage convertible; two, to ensure that a certain further percentage should be convertible after 1951; and, three, to make an adjustment of the total balances due according to the benefit that the countries concerned had received from the war effort of the Allied nations. In fact His Majesty's Government have paid lip service to that


theory. On 18th February of this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
… in all negotiations about sterling balances account must be taken of the comparative war effort of the parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947, Vol. 433, c. 974.]
A fortnight later I asked him a further question in which I asked if the word "must" meant what the right hon. Gentleman implied, to which he very rightly replied, "Yes." In fact His Majesty's Government have done absolutely nothing to make an adjustment of the sterling balances before they granted convertibility.
Let us look at one or two of the cases which have occurred. There is the case of the Argentine, a country well renowned for the war effort it put forth, a country which His Majesty's Government were no doubt only too glad to see in the parade of victory. What do His Majesty's Government think they actually contributed to the war effort? Yet we acknowledged those war debts in full and allowed our British assets—that brought us in £4 million to £5 million in Argentine currency a year—to be swept away in the payment of sterling balances. His Majesty's Government no doubt had a good reason for that, but they have yet to tell the House what it was. There is also the case of Egypt, another country which as all hon. Members know, is renowned for the part it played in the war effort. We have acknowledged 100 per cent. under the temporary payments agreement of that which we nominally owe. Not only that, but we have made large sums available from that reserve convertible to pay to Egypt for those very imports which His Majesty's Government are telling us or will shortly be telling us we cannot ourselves afford to buy.
I would like to take the cases of Norway and Uruguay to point the moral of what I am saying. In the case of Norway we have a country that did fight with us and did make a great effort to participate in the war effort. In Uruguay, we have a country which quite honestly, as far as I know, did nothing except provide us with materials at whatever price they could command. But in both cases the sterling balances have been acknowledged 100 per cent.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman? His words,

of course, will go a long way. He has referred to Uruguay. I would like to remind him that Uruguay is a great friend of this country and did assist us materially during the war.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am more than fully prepared to accept what the Financial Secretary says. Indeed, the Financial Secretary knows that I have studied with considerable care what I am saying tonight, but I would ask the House to consider this. We have two countries, Norway and Uruguay, both treated in the same manner. I have read both the payments agreements and both the Statutory Rules and Orders implementing those agreements, and as I understand it—the Financial Secretary may contradict me—both those countries are treated in the same way. I do ask this of the Financial Secretary: Which contributed most in privation, suffering and genuine effort to the war effort? If he will tell me that Uruguay provided the same as Norway, I should be the first to withdraw. If he does not, then I can only say that what I said before the Financial Secretary interrupted me is still true and I put it to the House. Let us go a bit further——

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to deal with this when I reply so perhaps, as it is fresh in everybody's minds, I might deal with it now. When I intervened I was referring to the first remark about Uruguay made by the hon. and gallant Member. I would remind him and the House that Uruguay is a relatively small country, and when it was by no means clear that Germany was not going to win, she drove the "Graf Spey" out—a very brave and gallant thing to do, and of the utmost use to this country and to the Allies.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The last thing I would wish to do in this Debate is to try to raise a question such as the Financial Secretary has raised. [An HON. MEMBER: "You raised it."] If I have given rise to any Member of the House believing that I was talking about the question that the Financial Secretary has raised, then let me be the first to apologise. What I would say is that if we talk of Uruguay driving out the "Graf Spey," what do we think of the Norwegians? [An HON. MEMBER: "You were not talking about them."] That was


the point I was trying to make. If any hon. Member of this House, on that side or this, likes to make in his own mind a balance between the war efforts of the two countries concerned, then he is so entitled. I tried to make one, and the Financial Secretary objected to it.
I now come to a rather more important question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If any hon. Member opposite thinks that the question of sterling balances is unimportant——

Mr. King: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me——

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have given way before, and this is rather a complicated argument. I would like to get on with it. We come on to the second part, which is current transactions. His Majesty's Government were asked under the Orders I have mentioned to make the proceeds of current transactions convertible, but they have gone far outside those Orders. In these present payments agreements, and in the Statutory Rules and Orders which we are now debating, they have not only made balances available but they have made the gross balances available. By that, what His Majesty's Government have done is not to say that over a certain period we will take the transactions in order to assess whether we owe some other country something or whether that country owes us something, but that every single financial transaction is separate, and therefore everything that a foreign country receives from us in the way of sterling, because of our exports or, internally, because of our imports, is a matter for a separate decision; and it is perfectly possible, as we read these payments agreements, as we read the answers which the Financial Secretary has given, for any country to cash in on everything it imports to this country without taking into consideration whatever it may receive from this country.
The Financial Secretary, in an answer he gave not so long ago, confirmed that view by saying that those who run out of sterling because of the measure of convertibility which we have now introduced will not be penalised in any way against those who keep their sterling in order to pay from time to time for the exports that we make to them. I will not go further into that because the hon. Mem-

ber for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who I believe will Second this Motion, will deal with it more fully.
On these negotiations obviously there are two types of country. There are those with whom we have a surplus and those with whom we have a debit. In the case of those with whom we have a surplus, I would ask him direct questions. In the first case, Norway. In one of these Orders we are discussing we have an estimated credit balance during the year of £11 million. Under our payments agreement we are bound to hold £5 million of that, which leaves us with £6 million that we cannot demand from the Norwegians in terms of gold. I ask him in the second place if in the case of Czechoslovakia, we have an estimated credit balance of £8 million. We can only keep £1 million in Czechoslovakia which gives us £7 million to draw back from Czechoslovakia. In the case of these two countries we have £12 million which we can draw back to this country in terms of gold. I ask the Financial Secretary the direct question, what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this respect? Can we draw back that exchange, can we draw back that gold, and use it to finance our trade with America? Or, if we were so to do, is it not a fact that the whole of our export trade with those two countries would fall to the ground? I hope the Financial Secretary will give an answer to that, because it bears very much on what I am going to say now.
If one considers the case of the Argentine one gets the exact reverse. This year, as far as the trade figures can be computed, we shall have an adverse balance with them of £74 million. I hope hon. Members opposite will think of that sum. That sum is liable to be increased, because the Argentine have taken very great care to shut out those exports of ours which are most likely to penetrate into the Argentine. There is no hon. Member opposite who does not know that we must have meat from the Argentine. It is not a matter of discussion. We must have it. We have to incur that expenditure, and yet the Argentine are cutting out those very things with which we can reduce the adverse trade balance.

Mr. Rhodes: Textiles?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Textiles, or the goods I mentioned, and that figure of


£74 million for the first five months of this year may very well be increased. What is the policy of His Majesty's Government on this matter? Under the present order we are asked to approve under the present payments agreement to meet the whole of that £74 million in convertible currency. Are we to make£74 million available to the Argentines on this basis, and give them dollars for it? If so, without any disrespect to any hon. Member, it is no wonder that we are drawing on the American Loan at the present rate. Further, we not only agree to make convertible all these adverse trade balances, but equally, for some reason of which I hope the Government will tell us, we agree under this particular Order to make convertible whatever currency with which the Argentine may buy from Paraguay.
I will mention two other countries. With Spain we have the same sort of convertibility agreement. There we have an adverse balance, as far as I can judge from trade figures now produced, of £9 million. The Financial Secretary said on 23rd April that it may go up to £25 million. So far as I can see, it will reach nowhere near that amount. There again we are prepared to pay out this incredible amount from limited dollar resources to Spain. In Egypt, which I understand will be dealt with later in the Debate by another hon. Member, under this agreement, which only lasts for six months, we are literally to pay out £42,500,000 of convertible currency.
Finally, we have the statement made by the Chancellor two days ago, in which he said that all moneys received from the International Monetary Fund in terms of sterling or sterling area currencies would be convertible. I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us whether the Chancellor was correct in that statement. Some doubt has been cast upon it in the last 48 hours. If it is correct, it means that £530 million becomes convertible at will by other countries. If one thinks for just one moment that our sole balance of hard currency at the moment is £250 million under the American Loan, it will be seen that that would bankrupt us before we knew where we were.
I would ask the Financial Secretary whether the Chancellor is correct in stating that the whole of these moneys are governed by Article 19 of the International Monetary Fund. If that is so,

how does he balance that with Article 5 (3, a) and, if he takes Article 5 (3, a) what is the value of Article 5 (4)? I am afraid this is very complicated, and that it sounds like a conundrum, but no doubt the gentlemen who advise the Financial Secretary will be able to solve it very quickly.
In what I have said tonight I have tried only to do one thing, that is, to ask the Government for a clear statement of our convertibility. It is a subject which must be discussed in this House. There is no one on either side who, looking at the figures of what we are withdrawing from America, and what we are letting in ourselves, can but wonder if we can, in fact, undertake the burden which His Majesty's Government have laid upon us. I ask the Government to give us a clear statement. We are not trying to make party politics out of this. We are merely asking that in these days. when every Member of this House is trying to see what is to come, that at least His Majesty's Government give us a clear lead about that which they have undertaken. We know full well in this House that of all those on whom we count for help, the Americans are our best friends in these times of trouble, but we know that unless the Government are prepared to tell us the truth and the whole truth, we cannot possibly hope for the help which we would otherwise get. It is in this sense and in this frame that I move this Motion.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I beg to second the Motion.
I think that Members on both sides of the House will agree that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who so ably moved this Motion, showed himself to be the master of a subject which is of the greatest possible interest. It is no use pretending that we can be thrilling or exciting about these payments agreements. It requires a cold towel round the head for some considerable time to master this extremely complicated subject. After what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, I propose to confine myself solely to the issue of convertibility which is raised, and the consequences of that convertibility. That


is what really matters—can we face this or can we not? That is the question I should like to examine. It will be agreed, I think, that under these agreements we are discussing now all funds acquired through current transactions become convertible into dollars and, therefore, into gold, whereas large amounts of old sterling acquired prior to the agreements become convertible by means of a special release to which these special agreements which we are discussing give effect. It is not the net but the gross sterling balances that become convertible.
Foreign countries, I suggest to the House, will be very strongly tempted to convert into dollars at once any sterling receipts that they get because their need for dollars is very great. It is almost as great as our own. Even if there is no genuine surplus on current trading accounts, this can be done if British payments for imports mature before foreign payments for our exports. Sometimes, owing to seasonal causes, we have to pay first and the foreigner pays later. The temptation if we have to convert our payments into dollars will, under present conditions of the world, be almost irresistible. Therefore, foreign countries concerned will be able from now on to use our very slender dollar resources in order to husband their own dollars, and the drain upon sterling will continue indefinitely and at ever increasing speed.
We must always bear in mind that it is their monetary authorities, not burs, who will determine whether or not a balance originates from current transactions. Nor need these foreign countries apply the principle of reciprocity. If the balance of trading turns against them, they can denounce these agreements at the shortest possible notice. Prior to this, payment was made by us in goods and now—this is really the issue which confronts the House tonight—there is no longer any need for them to buy British goods. In fact, it might well be to their advantage to cut down British imports in order to obtain convertible sterling which is more valuable to them at present than British goods. This is what actually has been done by the Argentine. Sterling obtained from the International Monetary Fund, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, will also be convertible even if not from a current trading transaction. I think there is no doubt, from my reading of

the agreements, that this is the case. It it is the case, if sterling obtained from the International Monetary Fund, the fund established under Bretton Woods, is also to be convertible into dollars, a fantastic situation arises because we shall then be making our contribution to the fund not in sterling, which was originally contemplated, but in dollars. Not only that, but we shall be paying interest on it as well. In that case, sterling may very easily become a scarce currency and if it is declared a scarce currency by the International Fund, why, then, foreign countries will be given full permission to discriminate against British goods. We shall get all the disadvantages of having a scarce currency without any of the advantages.
I now come to what I am afraid some hon. Gentlemen on both Aides of the House will say is a bee in my bonnet. I wish to say that the agreements we are discussing tonight shackle us more firmly and more relentlessly than ever to the gold standard, and it is an infinitely more rigid gold standard than the one that prevailed before 1930 because of our much more rigid wage structure, because of our very great social services and, last but not least, because of the cheap money policy. In practice what these agreements do is to make sterling convertible into dollars and therefore into gold. Of course, in so doing it enormously increases the danger of sudden withdrawals of foreign balances from London which, for some considerable period when we were right off gold—detached altogether—was completely removed. I would like to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was the withdrawal of balances from London that brought about the fall of the Labour Government of 1931. It was the withdrawal of balances from Paris that brought about the fall of the Blum Government a few years later, and it may well be that the withdrawal of balances from London which they are so carefully arranging tonight may bring about their own fall rather sooner than they anticipate.
We are now financing the world dollar deficit. That is what we are doing under this payments agreement. Our own balance of trade deficit does not account, I suggest, for more than a quarter of the speed of our present loan withdrawals, and everybody has been saying, "Why


is it that the loan is being exhausted so quickly?" That is why. The loan is being exhausted so quickly because we are financing the world dollar deficit, and, of course, the release of old sterling under the sterling balances agreements which we have made, to which this payments agreement which are are now discussing relates, has enormously increased the speed of the loan withdrawals. It is estimated by an eminent economist—and I should like to press this home on the Financial Secretary—that, if we applied the terms of the Argentine Agreement generally over Our other sterling balance creditors, we should be withdrawing sterling from London—not in the form of current transactions—all of which would be converted into dollars and therefore into gold, at the rate of £120 millions a month—if we applied the terms and conditions which we have given to Argentina to the other countries in the sterling area. This convertibility of sterling is imposing upon us an unbearable burden, which we are simply not capable of carrying, and a far more intolerable burden than Article 9 of the Loan Agreement which has been so much criticised. It must contract our trade. We cannot afford to lose dollars at this rate, and the only way we can stop this loss, if we pass this agreement tonight, is to cut down our imports from those particular countries.
Similarly, they want all the dollars they can get, and the way to get dollars from their point of view, is to get convertible sterling, and, therefore, importing from us as few things as they possibly can in order to obtain as much sterling as they can to convert into dollars. The whole effect of this agreement must, therefore, be contractionary rather than expansionary, so far as trade is concerned. It is the end, for the time being, Of bilateralism, and thus we are deprived of the only two assets we have—our own home production and skill, and the value of our own home market. We can thus compete no longer. As long as the holders of sterling were entitled to withdraw their balances by the purchase of British or sterling area goods, we had a chance of getting through: now, I think we have no chance of getting through.
I suggest, in conclusion, that this is just one other part of what seems to me to be an insane attempt on the part of the Government to relate the national

economy to a 19th century doctrine which was half dead in the later 19th century and finally crashed in 1910—a system in which nothing else counts but the cash nexus, in which there were no sympathies, no loyalties, no preferences, but free multilateral trade and cut-throat competition, and I suggest that the only purpose of this agreement tonight can be to facilitate a revival of that free multilateral trade. I say to the Government tonight that that revival is not, in fact, going to take place, and, if it did, we are no longer in a position to compete in a free world market at competitive prices: All these arrangements which the Government are bringing forward to the House will, I want most seriously to suggest, be very short lived. Whether they be Article 9, non-discrimination, these payment agreements, the gold standard, Bretton Woods, or anything else, they will all fall to the ground; they will have to be abandoned. I think that these particular payment agreements—and I am guilty of the very dangerous thing of prophecy—and the agreements which we have reached with regard to the sterling balances, will have to be repudiated by His Majesty's Government before the end of this year. I do not think that we can possibly keep on. It is sheer, stark insanity, in our present position, to embark upon this ludicrous course which we have undertaken.
This country can stand up to most things. I think it can even stand up, for quite a long time, to the present Government, and even to some measure of Socialism, but, if there is one thing to which it cannot stand up, it is sheer boneheaded stupidity, and that is what we are complaining about tonight. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can bring forward one single argument to show that we in this country, who are now, perhaps, approaching the supreme economic crisis of our history, are in a position to embark upon a policy which is designed to lead us back to free convertibility and free multilateral trade, and I challenge any hon. Member on either side of the House to refute that statement.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has spoken about convertibility, and I, if I may, will speak a very few


sentences about the sterling balances themselves. It is not common in history for nations to commit suicide with their eyes open. We on this side of the House, at any rate, and, no doubt, many hon. Members opposite, do not understand why this nation should commit suicide with its eyes open. If that intention is to be carried through, it is necessary to take what meagre opportunities come to us to raise these matters on the Floor of the House, especially when we remember the way we were treated over the American Loan, and the difficulties which the Government have always thrown in our way in raising these questions.
The sterling balances consist of two types. In the first place there are the balances which have nothing at all to do with the war, but which were held by various countries in London before the war, as backing for their own currencies. It was never intended that the moneys—some £700 million—should ever be called in at all, and there is no kind of reason, morally, why, therefore, we should, at this moment, tolerate any sudden calling in of these monies, which would inevitably throw both this country, and indeed, the whole world into chaos. The rest of the sterling balances consist of the moneys that were piled up in London for the goods which were sent by other countries to this country, in order that this country should carry on the war. But, from the very first, the late Government made it perfectly clear that, not for one second, did we admit that we were in debt to these other countries for the whole of these sums of money. These moneys were largely used—in Egypt, India, and other countries, and, in a general way, in the whole world—for the defence of those countries by British arms.
Those sterling balances were piled up to that tremendous figure for one specific reason, and one reason alone. It was that the British Empire alone defied the menace of Nazi aggression from the first day of the war to the last. Many other countries had passed resolutions about standing up to aggression and about collective security before the war. All the other countries came to join in the battle against Hitlerism before the war ended. We need not enter into any sort of competition with other countries, but should lay down the principle that we are not

liable, simply because this country fought the war from beginning to the end, and that, therefore, in our agony after the war, we should have to pay the whole cost of the war. We are under no sort of moral obligation to regard the figure put forward as the full sterling balance. There is no obligation on this country to assent, for instance, to such a proposal as that laid down by the Egyptian Finance Minister, that Egypt will not accept any scaling down of sterling balances in any circumstances, and that it is Egypt's right to be paid in full. We are entitled to ask the Government to repudiate entirely such an opinion as that of the Egyptian Finance Minister and to say that we do not accept such an obligation at all.
What we are entitled to ask today is that, while this country is in this extremely difficult position, we do not wish to repudiate any obligations, even such as some of us oppose when presented to us, but we are entitled to ask the Government to take full advantage of every legal right we have in our time of difficulty. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen spoke about the question of convertibility. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) quoted Article 7, but according to Article 7 we are under obligation to make sterling convertible unless in exceptional circumstances, that convertibility was postponed. But what are exceptional circumstances if the present circumstances are not exceptional? Looking at the general state of the world, whether we look at the unexpected rise of American prices or the prices in other countries, such as the Argentine. I cannot imagine what can be exceptional circumstances if the present circumstances are not exceptional. We are entitled to ask the Government to say firmly and frankly to the rest of the world, in the first place, that exceptional circumstances have arisen and, therefore, they ask to be freed from Article 7 and, in the second place, the abolition of what is called the discrimination of trade is an impossibility and they ask to be freed from Article 9. If the American Government will not free them, they should call the attention of the American Government to Subsection (6) of Article 9, which gives other countries the right to declare their currency a scarce currency. If they


will not free us from Article g voluntarily or by negotiation, we shall have no alternative but to declare that the dollar is a scarce currency. I hope the Financial Secretary will respond to the appeal to reply, and give us a greater account of the Government's policy than has been given before. It is utterly irresponsible that these measures of such vast importance should be rushed through in this hole-and-corner manner so that it is impossible for the country to know what is going on.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I would like to start by saying there is some danger in thinking of the effects of these Orders in terms of money only. We have in the last hour voted £1,500 millions practically "on the nod," without its being regarded as anything abnormal, and I think we have become almost drunk with figures. I would like to try to turn the effect of these deals not into figures, but into materials and trade. What must be the result of these Orders? First of all, to take dollars away from us and give them to others, which means to put others ahead in the queue for the vital raw materials we need in the next year or two to keep our factories going. I would like to drive that home with all the force I can command. We take cotton, metals, food, from our own people and give them to Egypt the Argentine, and to other countries. That is, in itself, a vital step. But at the same time we give a double option to those countries either to take the dollars or our unrequited exports, unrequited exports which are ill-requited services when we think of what we did for those countries during the war. I am not going to try to make a comparison of war efforts, but if we sit down and think unexcitedly and calmly of what the real war efforts were, we know who took the option at that time with regard to which side of the fence they were coming down. Hon. and right hon. Members know perfectly well the truth of this, and will recall events before El Alamein. They will know perfectly well that what we are doing now is to promote many of the countries who made the least effort to help in the world war effort. There can be no doubt in my mind about the difficulties in which the Government find themselves in these negotiations. But they have not used all the weapons at their

disposal. During the war there were created different forms of financial machinery, such as the semi-block sterling—of which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows a good deal—which put some control into the hands of the Government so that greedy countries, which wished to take advantage of our situation after the war, were prevented from doing so
Let us be quite frank about the matter. We are in the most difficult financial position in which any country has ever found itself, and for the best possible reasons. It is no good puffing ourselves up and pretending that we are not in that position. There was once a cry in this country about the folly of trying "to look the dollar in the eye." There is equal folly, at the moment, in trying to pretend that our financial position is better than it really is. Had we, in approaching these countries, taken as our motto the words from Shakespeare:
I am dying, Egypt, dying!
—and financially that seems to be our position—we might have obtained from that tough and difficult country a rather different result. I am going to ask the Financial Secretary, when he replies, not to confine himself to figures, but to think also in terms of food and raw materials. There is an option in the Bretton Woods clause that consideration may be given to war effort which the Ministries of Food and Supply and the Board of Trade might well take into account when negotiating bulk contracts on long-term. In contracts it is usual now to put in a clause which gives the option of adjusting prices and conditions according to the conditions which may be prevailing in two or three years' time, or towards the end of the currency of such contracts. Surely, that was in the mind of America and the other signatories at Bretton Woods in putting into the Agreement the proviso that special consideration should be given in negotiating sterling and other balances. To stick too closely to the letter during these negotiations, not to have complete frankness—even brutal frankness—is to have a result which will end in stopping the wheels of our factories turning and in reducing our diet. We are almost being asked to make sacrifices and to accept conditions even worse, and yet negotiations are carried through which will allow those who gain


the advantage to see us declining and themselves going up in the world, when the opposite should, with justice, be the result.

10.40 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I think the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) was quite right when he said that this subject is a very technical one, and one which is extremely difficult to understand. There are, I know, not quite as many experts on finance in the House as there are on foreign affairs. Nevertheless, we have quite a number. I do not know what an expert is, but someone told me the other day that he was a man who knew more and more about less and less; and the longer I have anything to do with finance, and some of these Orders and these monetary agreements I begin to feel that I must be an expert, because the thing is inclined to become more and more complicated and more difficult than ever to understand.
This subject, however, does permit the prophet to come into his own and we have not only tonight, but on previous occasions had prophets of woe who have said that the most terrible things were going to happen—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] Fortunately, up to now they have not—[HON. MEMBERS: "You wait."] I would say that some of the points that have been raised would be better dealt with, I think, in the Debate next week, when the Prime Minister himself will be making a statement and we shall have two whole days in which to consider the situation. It is not for me—far from it—to say that the situation is not a very serious one. It is, indeed, extremely serious. But I have not the time, and, if I may say so, it is not for me tonight, in replying to Prayers on these three Orders, to range over the whole field of the Exchange Control Act, the Bretton Woods Agreement, the International Monetary Fund, and the Financial Agreement of 1945 between ourselves and the United States. I will, however, in the course of the observations I shall offer to the House, touch on some of these in replying to the more important arguments and criticisms which have been put forward from the other side of the House this evening. What I would ask the House to do, first of all, is to put this thing in

perspective. Those of us who were in the House when the war broke out will remember that in 1939, and very properly so, a total prohibition was placed through the Defence (Finance Regulation) on the making of any payment except with Treasury consent to any resident who was not within the sterling area.
The prohibition applied to payments by a United Kingdom resident to a resident outside the sterling area and to any payment by one resident outside the sterling area to another, if the payment was made through a United Kingdom bank account. It was an extremely rigid control. It was eased, as the House will remember—and I want it particularly to remember this—by a succession of bilateral agreements with the chief countries outside the sterling area. They all had one common feature and that was that sterling held by the country concerned would only be available for spending in the sterling area, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen reminded us tonight, or for transfer to a resident in the same country as the person who desired to transfer. That was the bilateral system, and, as I understand the argument from the other side tonight, it is that that bilateral system should continue. Unless I am mistaken the burden of some of the criticisms coming from hon. Members opposite was——

Mr. Drayson: What about all the arguments?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to say anything which is not correct but, listening, as carefully as I could to the arguments from the other side, I tried to discover what the Opposition would have done which the Government have not done in the circumstances facing us. I start from this basis: as I understand them they desire that the bilateral agreements, which limited anyone not living in the sterling area to making any payments they had to make within the sterling area, or between one resident and another both outside the sterling area——

Mr. Boothby: Bilateral agreements extended into regional agreements, but definitely regional agreements within the sterling area. "Bilateral" means only two.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: What we have done in effect is to make regional agreements supersede the bilateral agreements. Now


we are coming to the multilateral system for which I will presently offer a defence, and, I hope, a very good defence before I sit down. Those who were in the House last year, and I think most hon. Members were here last year, will remember the debates on the Anglo-American Financial Agreement. It was then decided, as a result of the coming into force of the Agreement between ourselves and the U.S.A., to abolish the bilateral system and to allow the free movement of sterling as from a fixed date, provided that the transfer was a current transaction.
Some of the observations made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen overlooked the fact that the transaction must be a current one. It would be quite impracticable for the Exchange Control here to have examined, under the new multilateral system, every proposed transfer to see whether it was or whether it was not a transaction of a current kind. It was therefore essential that arrangements should be made with all the non-sterling area countries under which the competent authority of that particular country would undertake to carry out the supervision. It was necessary to establish that when a transfer took place, it was on a current transaction and not one of the capital kind, or from reserves. Those are the transferable accounts referred to in the Regulation of Payments Order which is now being prayed against and which I must point out is a really consolidating Order. If it lapsed it would not mean, as I think some speakers have assumed it would mean, that the whole system of transferable accounts would lapse with it. It would only hit a certain number of countries, most of them small countries, and it would be a going back on obligations we undertook when we signed the Anglo-American Financial Agreement of 1945.
So far as the United States is concerned—and a good deal has been said about the United States tonight—the system of transferable accounts which is embodied in this White Paper was not applied to that country. There is no exchange control in the United States—a happy country in more than one direction. It has no controls of any kind which could, or do, distinguish between transfer of a capital kind and current transactions. These arrangements could not, therefore, be applied to the United States and the countries which come within her

orbit—or, rather, the orbit of the American dollar. For the United States the system of American accounts was introduced, and sterling on those accounts has been saleable for dollars at our official rate, either in New York or London, for some time; and sterling on those accounts does enjoy, in addition, the right of transfer to transferable accounts. This, as I have indicated, has been extended to a number of other States, not all, but some of them South American States. The domestic legal counterpart to the agreements with other countries to which I have referred as bi-lateral and now multi-lateral—or multi-lateral in incidence—is and has been the Payments Order. A number of these have been issued and, although I do not want to make a point of this, I think it is true to say that the majority have not been queried by the Opposition. It seems curious to me that when we come, as we do in this Order, to a loosening of all the controls, that the Opposition should raise so much criticism——

Mr. Boothby: Not all; most.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: —of our action. This Regulation of Payments Order which is before the House tonight does, quite definitely, loosen the regulations which have in the past, as I say, been extremely tight. Now only a very small proportion of countries—I think it is less than 1 per cent. —remains to be brought into the orbit of the agreements which we have made, and which are consolidated in this particular Order.
What is the object the Government nave in view in making these agreements embodied in this particular consolidating Statutory Rule and Order and the one dealing with Sweden, which was made, as the House will see, a few days after the Consolidation (No. 3) Order was made? This country in the old days was the financial centre of the world.

Mr. Boothby: Good old days.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: They were in some ways and for some people, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen says. For others they were not so good. But it is true that, in those days, London was the financial centre of the world. It is our hope that London will regain its place as a great business and financial centre,


and there is no reason why—unless some hon. Members on the other side of the House and others cry us down too much—we should not reach that happy state at an earlier date than some people imagine. It is part of my case tonight that these agreements which have been made, and the loosening which this Order evidences, are a stage in our progress back to normal. The object we have in view is a simple one, namely, to bring back sterling to its old historic position in the world. It is obviously not in the interests of this Government, or of the country, that the present system of controls should continue indefinitely. As I have already said, it is obvious that the rigid controls of the early bi-lateral agreements had to come to an end.

Mr. Boothby: Do I understand that His Majesty's Government consider taking off any more controls? Is that the way we are going into the crisis?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I was not saying that because it is not true that we are taking off all controls. We are not. But it is our policy to reduce the controls. One of the reasons which has made it necessary—and this is well known to hon. Members opposite as well as to hon. Members on this side—and why we have had to take this matter a stage farther, is our obligation under the Anglo-American agreement of 1945, that, as from 15th July, to make sterling convertible——

Mr. Hollis: Except in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, I take that point, except in exceptional circumstances.
It is a matter of opinion whether exceptional circumstances have arisen so far as this matter is concerned. It is essential in our view that, to bring the world back to normal, we must take steps to relax the financial controls which have existed and before any widespread relaxation can take place it is desirable, and in fact necessary, that some agreement should be come to with the countries which had wartime accumulations of sterling standing to their credit—accumulations known as sterling balances. Unless when convertibility came about—and we undertook to bring it about on 15th July—something had been done to

deal with these sterling balances, they would, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen has said, have become unmanageable and out of hand. The hon. Member said, I believe, that they had already done so and I say they have not. We have made agreements with most of those who had sterling balances here. We began with Argentina and we have made agreements with other countries. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) wanted to know if the Government agreed with the Egyptian spokesman who said that Egypt intended to get the whole of her sterling balances. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his view on more than one occasion on this subject, and I need not say any more on that score tonight.
What is the quantitive effect of the multilateral use of sterling which this Order envisages? It is quite impossible for me to say. We do not know what the effect will actually be of the freeing of sterling in this way. What we believe is that it was essential as a step. We still control the amount of sterling flowing into the hands of residents outside the sterling area. We have in this country—and no one on the other side of the House mentioned this tonight although it is a very real fact—not only a real exchange control at present under the Defence Regulations and shortly under the Exchange Control Act passed earlier this year, but also an import licensing system which, I think I can claim, is pretty watertight. The sterling currently earned by foreigners together with freed accumulated balances is liberated under these agreements. The liberation of these sterling balances, does constitute a considerable sterling spending power, of which I hope this country will have its share through the goods and the services which we will sell.
What other countries will do with the sterling which goes to them in these two ways it is impossible for us here to say, but I think I am entitled to assume that they will use it to buy goods from us, goods from other countries and, let us face it, because there is nothing wrong with it, also from the United States. It may be true that in some cases, unless we increase our exports, some of them will use much of the sterling which has been liberated for goods which they will purchase


in the United States. Insofar as that does occur it will, quite frankly, be a drain on our dollar resources.
On the other side, I would ask the House to remember that we have now, within the limitations which I have indicated, the fact that sterling will be acceptable all over the world because it can be spent anywhere. That is a great advance and one which should not be overlooked or under-emphasised. To maintain and increase this general acceptability of sterling has been and is a fundamental aim of the policy which His Majesty's Government are now pursuing. At the same time, as I said a little earlier, we have to remember that the obligation which we assumed under the convertibility arrangement is a very real one, and we must not minimise it amongst ourselves or to the country.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen and other speakers indicated that in their view the drain on our dollar resources would be too much, that, in fact, many of these countries would immediately transfer their sterling into dollars and that they would not spend the sterling on goods from this country. That is the prophecy of the hon. Gentleman and some of his friends and whether that prophecy will come true or not we do not know but it is prophesy only and not certain and, in my view, I do not think it certain at all. It is my view and I believe that of most right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, that we have far more friends in the world than some Members on the Opposition side of the House are inclined to believe. But what we must do, I think, is to limit and control the amount of sterling made available to the rest of the world and to see that British goods and services are available to mop up as much as possible of it as we can. Another thing we must not do is to lend to people who have no sterling to buy from us or have misused the sterling balances they have by spending them elsewhere. I would emphasise once again that under the exchange controls we have all demands for credits to residents outside the sterling area are very closely scrutinised and, normally, unless there are special reasons for it they will not——

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does that statement mean that the answer which the

right hon. Gentleman gave to the House a fortnight ago is now superseded?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Many answers have been made in the House a fortnight ago. I am afraid that for the moment I do not charge my memory with the reply the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I asked the right hon. Gentleman about that in my speech.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry but I cannot remember. There were a number of observations in the hon. and gallant Member's speech and I cannot remember the particular one to which he now makes reference. But our main defence—and this is the reply to the hon. Member who sits for East Aberdeen, who believes that this country is on the brink of ruin—must be the export drive, coupled with a denial to ourselves of all but the most essential of imports.

Mr. Boothby: A drab, dry prospect.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer in his remarks about exports to both requited and unrequited exports?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Under convertibility and other agreements certain of our exports may, of course, be unrequited. There is not the slightest doubt about that. But, as the hon. Member for Devizes said, no one here wanted to go back on agreements come to or obligations entered into, or to repudiate moneys that are legitimately owing. With some of the nations who have sterling balances here and who obviously are entitled to some at any rate of the money owing to them we cannot indefinitely go on retaining the sterling balances accumulated here to their credit, and very properly so, over the war years. Therefore, it may be true that some of the moneys that may flow from this country will be unrequited, but, we are in this situation that we have to meet our obligations. These have been built up during the war and since. Arrangements have been made and signatures put to agreements and those agreements have to be honoured. That is what I am asking tonight in requesting the House to agree to this particular Payments Order. It is no more and no less than to regularise agreements which have been made, which in the view of the


Government, are essential and which will help to make sterling once again a currency which can be used throughout the world. That being so, I hope the House will agree that it is reasonable that this Prayer should not be acceded to, but that we should tonight agree to this Statutory Rule and Order.

Mr. Assheton: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down I wonder if I might put two questions. The first is: Has the startling pace at which the American loan is being drawn upon in any way been influenced by the convertibility agreements? The second question is: Will the right hon Gentleman give us a categorical assurance that His Majesty's Government will not use our gold resources in a desperate effort to maintain an impossible position?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Quite obviously those questions would be better put when we come to discuss this matter next week. I can answer them, but it is not my job necessarily to answer every question put to me. The option lies with me either to answer them or not, and I propose to exercise that option if I think it right. So far as the drain on the loan is concerned, it may be due in part to the convertibility arrangements which came into operation on 15th July. It is quite likely that some of it is partly due to that: it would be surprising if it were not. As to whether the Government would allow a drain on its gold in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, has yet to be seen, but I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were standing here, he would reserve to the Government the right to decide what to do when that event arises—if ever it does.

Mr. Assheton: Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give such a categorical assurance?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can give the right hon. Gentleman this assurance: That in no circumstances would I bind the Government in advance to a certain line of action before we know what the circumstances of that period will be.

11.12 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have listened to many speeches by the right

hon. Gentleman and he has always been most careful to answer matters we have raised, and I have never heard from him a speech in which he has failed to answer every one of the questions we had put. I did try—and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise it—to put to him a series of questions which he could answer without damage to any particular section of this country. He has chosen to ignore the whole lot. Those who were in the House when I first spoke will appreciate that I said nothing which was a reflection on His Majesty's Government. But he has done absolutely nothing in reply to this Debate to tell us what is the present situation, or what their past policy was. The right hon. Gentleman, for instance, talked about sterling balances. He made no reply to the questions I raised with him as to why the. Chancellor of the Exchequer had made those remarks—and the right hon. Gentleman was present when the Chancellor made them. Why have His Majesty's Government done nothing to implement them? That is a fair question and one raised not by this side of the House but the other.
There is not one Member of this House who is willing to accept these sterling debts at their face value. We ail of us propose to try to the best of our ability to ensure that final settlement of the debts represents a fair reflection of what we and the other country concerned did in the war. That is a question which I raised with the right hon. Gentleman. He never made one statement to try and justify any one of these agreements. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I was only going to say that these questions hardly arise under this particular Statutory Rule. They would arise—if they arise at all—and I am not complaining about it—on the actual agreement with the country concerned. It would have been open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have raised these points on the Egyptian Agreement or the agreement with whatever country he had in mind, but hardly on a consolidated Order of this sort.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: With due deference, I did ask that question. We raised this question of sterling balances on


the General Payments Order No 2 and subsidiaries, and General Payments Order No. 3. The two great countries which we have mentioned this evening are Argentina and Egypt, both of which are covered by the Motion now before the House. To take refuge in what the right hon Gentleman has said is to deny the House the one answer that it must have. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer sincere when he says that before he acknowledges all these debts which are going to make all the difference to our economy, he is going to achieve a just balance between what we did and what the other countries did? If he is, why did the right hon. Gentleman refuse to refer to these agreements tonight? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect to him, has any other answer to make. All he can say is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made answers to hon. Members on this side and on that which will give this House the impression that he has the intention of making a fair adjustment of old sterling or the sterling balances so that there shall be a just contribution, but when he comes to the agreements, which would never have come before this House for consideration if it were not for Prayers such as have been put down tonight, he has no argument and no statement to substantiate what the Chancellor has said. That is the bitter truth with regard to old sterling.
If we come to new sterling, the Financial Secretary has said nothing that alleviates any of those doubts or questions we have raised. I raised the question of the Argentine and Egypt. I raised the question that when we had a balance of £250 million left, we were to pay the Egyptians £42,500,000 and the Argentine £74,000,000 in the current financial year, both of which are entirely due to the agreements entered into by His Majesty's Government. The Financial Secretary saw no reason to refer to either of these in the remarks he made. All he said was that we were loosening up sterling. If that is what His Majesty's Government calls loosening up sterling, no wonder we are losing all that hard exchange and currency that is between us and disaster. It is not for me, as I was saying in my first speech, to try to make an honest inquiry of the Government.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me——

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish. I raised two further questions with the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him about the £100,000,000 we are losing in these two countries, and what was happening in regard to the surpluses we were entitled to receive. He refused to answer. He refused to answer further whether, in fact, we could cash in, or whether, if we did, we would lose the whole of our exports. I went on and asked this question, which to us must be of the highest importance, whether all sums drawn in sterling from the International Monetary Fund, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the day before yesterday, are convertible, and that sum is £530,000,000. He cannot deny that was so under Article 19 (5) of the International Monetary Fund. I pointed out to the Financial Secretary that doubt has been cast upon that by Article 5 (3) (a). I did warn the House that it is somewhat technical, but it depends upon what view you take. Where you have only £250,000,000 and have this liability of £530,000,000, it seemed to us the least the Financial Secretary could do was to give me an answer. He has refused to give this House one answer to any of the questions referred to him. We tried to refer them to him in the spirit of non-partisanship. All he has done is to make a long and rambling speech covering a great many points but not one of those raised by myself or my hon. Friends. He has done nothing whatsoever either to tell us that "His Majesty's Government are satisfied with the agreement or to give any other reason. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I will divide against this Order.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I have listened to the whole of the Debate with great care and it never occurred to me that the innocent purpose of the Opposition was the extracting of information. The bulk of their questions, and they have asked a lot, have been entirely rhetorical, and what was not rhetorical was made up of the wildest exaggerations of the possibilities of this agreement.

Mr. Boothby: Wait and see.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does the hon. Gentleman speak as the Financial Secretary?

Mr. Benson: Do I speak as the Financial Secretary? Surely, the hon. Gentleman does not need to ask that. I am entitled to speak in this House as well as any other Member. I say quite definitely that the statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite have been the wildest exaggerations. What they have done has been to take any theoretical possibilities of what might happen under this agreement and present that as the inevitable picture of what must happen. Well, it is just nonsense. And not satisfied with that, they drag in a number of extraneous matters and factual errors. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) suggested that the sterling in the International Monetary Fund might be drawn upon by other countries for the purpose of buying dollars. It may not.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I was quoting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not myself.

Mr. Benson: The hon. Gentleman made a definite statement, that £500,000,000 in the Fund was an ever-present liability. The sterling in the International Monetary Fund may be used for the purpose of buying British goods and services and nothing else. It may not be used for the purpose of buying other currency. That is laid down quite definitely in the rules of the Fund. Everybody knows it or ought to know it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Except the Chancellor.

Mr. Benson: Great play has been made with the sterling balances. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think it was incumbent on the Government while making this payment arrangement relating entirely to current payments to settle also the whole question of the sterling balances. As a matter of fact, there are a few minor sterling balances, very small ones, which have been paid in full. There is the Argentine sterling balance which has been settled by the sale of the Argentine railways; but the Egyptian sterling balance has not been settled. Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that it has? The Egyptian sterling balance has been left in abeyance for further negotiation six months hence. All other large sterling balances are awaiting negotiation. How can the Financial Secretary deal with

sterling balance settlements on arrangements which deal with current payments? It is fantastic for the Opposition to expect that he should.
The purpose of this Debate has been to make an attack upon the American Loan which hon. Members opposite have never liked. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes it is. The American Loan, and the restrictions of that loan, have been put forward by practically every speaker as one of the main causes of our present difficulties. [Interruption.] It is true that in our present circumstances the Agreement as to transferability of sterling on the 15th of this month is a rather onerous burden. But I suggest that if we had not had the American Loan, we would have been in a far worse position in the last 12 months than we shall be in the next. For heaven's sake, let us get some sense of proportion and some sense of balance. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has used this Debate to raise King Charles's head, to make an attack on multilateral trade, and to advocate Empire trade and bilateralism, as he always has done. I am not going to deal with that. I will only quote from a speech by the late Lord Keynes in another place. He said:
Imperial preference and bi-lateralism is an attempt on the part of this country to buy with things which other countries do not want the goods which they have not got.
I leave the hon. Gentleman with Lord Keynes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) tried to extract a pledge from the Financial Secretary that in no circumstances would our gold reserve be used. Does he know how much that reserve is?

Mr. Assheton: I do not know.

Mr. Benson: Does he know how rapidly that gold reserve has been accumulating during the last twelve months? Has he any current information about it?

Mr. Assheton: Does the hon. Member know?

Mr. Benson: No, I do not know, and no one, apart from the Treasury and the Bank of England, does know. To ask for a pledge of that kind is to ask for a pledge regarding something of the value of which the hon. Gentleman has no idea. Moreover, if we are never to use our gold, we might as well dump it in the Atlantic.


What is the good of having the gold reserve?

Mr. Assheton: I referred to using it for a specific purpose.

Mr. Benson: What purpose?

Mr. Assheton: To implement certain obligations being discussed now.

Mr. Benson: The right hon. Gentleman made no limitation of that kind. [Interruption.] If I am wrong in that, I am sorry. The purpose of our accumulation of a gold reserve is the defence of sterling; and it would be completely sterilised unless we use it when sterling required assistance. To suggest that the gold reserve should not be used for the purpose of operating and implementing these agreements is to defeat the very purpose for which a gold reserve is acquired. Really, the case put up by the Opposition against these Orders is, as I said at the beginning, pure exaggeration and it has been used for purely party purposes. We entered into a solemn agreement with America to get the Loan. Hon. Gentlemen may not like the Loan, but that does not matter. We are facing an extremely difficult position, and the goodwill of the United States is likely to be of very great value to us. I suggest that facing the world as we do, dependent on the world as we are, one of the greatest assets we can have is the fact that the world can rely upon us to maintain our word and to meet our bond and not to try to shuffle out of it when times are bad.

11.31 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has brought some perspective and

balance to this Debate. Many of us resented the tone of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were badgering the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is too serious an issue for us to be trifling with it, and hon. Members opposite ought to know that this is not an occasion when answers can be given to some of the questions they have raised. I think that the best and most useful remark made by the Financial Secretary was that the Prime Minister in next week's Economic Debate will deal with this problem of convertibility, for I think it would give a wrong impression in the country, and wrong impression in America, if it was thought that only a few Members on the other side of the House were anxious as to how convertibility is going to affect the fortunes of this country.

I do not want to go into that argument tonight. I hope I shall have an opportunity at a later time, but I think it does nothing but good to our relations with America that the American public should be helped to understand that the lifeline which many of them thought they were throwing to Great Britain in the form of dollar credits is tied round some quite impossible terms so that other countries are also holding on to that lifeline in a way which certainly very much reduces its value to us, without necessarily saving the other countries. I hope that next week, in the main Debate, this most serious issue for our own future welfare and our relations with America will be opened again in the House from all sides as it was discussed originally when some of us did express from these Benches our uneasiness about the terms of the American Loan.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes. 177.

Division No. 346]
AYES.
[11.34 p.m.


Bennett, Sir P
Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Carson, E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Taylor C. S (Eastbourne)


Channon, H.
Hollis, M. C.
Teeling, William


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


De la Bère, R.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Molson, A. H. E.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre and


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Mr. Boothby.




NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Baird, J.
Blenkinsop, A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Blyton, W. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Barton, C
Boardman, H.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Bowdan, Flg.-Offr. H. W.


Attewell, H. C.
Benson, G.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)


Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)




Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Holman, P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hoy, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hubbard, T.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Buchanan, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Burke, W. A.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Scollan, T.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Segal, Dr. S.


Cobb, F. A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Sharp, Granville


Collindridge, F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Collins, V. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Crawley, A.
Lavers, S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Leonard, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Snow, Capt. J W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Longden, F.
Solley, L. J


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lyne, A. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S O. (Merthyr)
McAllister, G.
Stamford, W.


Deer, G.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Stephen, C.


Delagry, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Diamond J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S.


Donovan, T.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sylvester, G. O


Driberg, T. E. N.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mathers, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Medland, H. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dye, S.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Monslow, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Moody, A. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Tiffany, S.


Farthing W. J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Titterington, M. F.


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Field, Captain W. J.
Murray, J. D.
Walkden, E.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Nally, W.
Walker, G. H.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Weitzman, D.


Gaitskell, H. T. N
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Orbach, M.
West, D. G.


Gibson, C. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Gilzean, A.
Pargiter, G. A
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Glanville, J E (Consett)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Gordon.-Walker, P. C
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, C. F.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Porter, E (Warrington)
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Hale, Leslie
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hall, W. G.
Proctor, W. T
Willis, E.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pryde, D. J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Ranger, J.
Woods, G. S.


Hardman, D. R.
Rankin, J.
Yates, V. F


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R.



Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss M.
Robens, A.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Popplewell.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: While it is clear that the subject to which I wish to draw the attention of the House refers particularly to the future employment of those German prisoners of war who are willing to remain in this country, I think it will be not only convenient but necessary to make some passing reference to the treatment of the general body of prisoners of war. In its application, the proposal I am making would be for a limited period: that is, if German prisoners of war due for repatriation were willing to remain here in useful employ-

ment, then the period of that employment might be restricted, say, to a year or to 18 months, for the simple reason that there is no desire on my part to denude Germany of any of her industrial strength in the period of her convalescence. But at the moment, in addition, to the coal shortage in that distracted country, there is unemployment in many ancillary industries, and it would surely be far better to employ prisoners of war who are willing to remain here on useful work, than to have them rotting in Germany.
At the moment the total number of prisoners, so far as I can ascertain, is in the region of 354,000, made up of 282,431 in this country and 71,988 in the Middle East, in which area, I believe, the morale of those men is very poor, according to progress report No. 28 of the prisoner of


war division of the German Section of the Foreign Office. This is due to the hold-up in repatriation from that area which, instead of being speeded up from the 2,000 to the 5,000 promised per month, fell to 1,300 in May. It is encouraging to know that during June the figure rose to 5,000, but the May figure demands some official explanation. However, I will return to my main point. The total prisoner of war strength is in the region of 350,000 and so far as I can estimate, 10 per cent. of this total, as a maximum, would remain here if given the chance. This represents a potential labour force of 20,000 to 30,000 which would be no mean acquisition in view of the economic difficulties of the moment. In fact, if statements, reported and expected, reflect the truth of our economic situation as it really is—and we have heard this evening some account of that situation—then it would appear that today either we hang together or hang separately. Therefore, any pair of hands willing to work for us in this emergency should not lightly be swept aside.
In order that we may have an accurate estimate of the numbers concerned, the Minister should take a census of prisoners in this country and in the Middle East to find how many are willing and anxious to remain or to come here, and in what capacity they would stay. Secondly, there should be a linking up of this with those industries in which there is a real shortage of British labour so that, with the trade unions in agreement, we might find exactly what numbers could be recruited for our labour force in basic industries such as the coal mines, textiles, brickworks, and so on.
I admit that there is an almost tragic irony in the situation, and I do not propose to dwell on that. This inquiry, for instance, might show that prisoners in agricultural work and due for repatriation were not willing to remain in this country. They could be replaced by others not at present employed to advantage. In this connection I would mention that there is the charge that good farm workers are being used today as bad workers in other industries. We should ensure that every prisoner is in the job for which he is best fitted, and that he is not sweeping up leaves in Hyde Park when he could be more usefully employed.
Promulgations to prisoners concerning their employment and conditions are often circulated in the Press and through the radio before they are announced officially to the prisoners, and sometimes, because of that, inaccuracies creep in and confusion is created. That is a point which my right hon. Friend might look into. It is worth noting on this question of prisoners of war that France has prepared a scheme which is most comprehensive and liberal in character. In spite of the ancient feud between the two countries, the French have shown an attitude in regard to this matter which is better than we have so far shown. They have formulated this very comprehensive scheme and it is called, "Directives isssued by the French Government for German Prisoners of War." It enables German prisoners, with certain reservations, to volunteer for a wide variety of trades, so that in France today Germans are being recruited for, and employed in, coal mines, textiles, shipping, agriculture, railways, hydro-electric undertakings and also the iron and metal working industries. Also I believe they are being encouraged to acquire French citizen rights. Could not these directives be a pointer to us who who have always prided ourselves on our sense of fair play and justice?
The war is over. Let us not lose the peace in a mist of technicalities. Let us recognise and act on three obligations. The first is the moral obligation which should require us to make it possible for all these men to return to their own country before the end of the year; the second is the human obligation to treat prisoners of war in the Middle East as human beings; and the third is the obligation imposed by ordinary good sense to make the best possible use of those prisoners who are willing to remain in this country when their time for repatriation comes. In doing that we shall serve not only their interests, but the interests of our country.

11.53. p.m.

Mr. Driberg: I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, will treat very seriously the suggestions that have been put to him. Some aspects of the problem that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) are not, of course, the


direct responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to see that any points which are not his responsibility will be passed to the War Office or to the German Section of the Foreign Office.
What my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has to answer tonight is the simple question: does the Ministry of Labour regard it as desirable that we should keep in this country, semi-permanently or permanently, as many of these prisoners as want to stay here? My right hon. Friend knows better than any of us that several of our great industries are severely undermanned. Presumably, he wants to increase their manpower, preferably from our own forces, by more rapid demobilisation, to which we are now looking forward, but also from this very acceptable source when it is a voluntary source of supply.
If it is desirable that as many of these German prisoners of war as wish to do so should be attracted into our industries on a semi-permanent basis, I want to put one suggestion to my right hon. Friend: it is that those who are undecided, when the time comes for their repatriation, whether they want to stay here or not, and who would be useful working citizens of this country, without any prejudice to the employment of British workers, should be given a form of home leave before they take their final decision. There are many prisoners—I know many of them myself—who have been prisoners for four, five or six years. They are in some cases despondent about going back to Germany. In many cases their homes have been destroyed and their families broken up. None the less, if they have any relatives surviving at all, they naturally want to go home and see them first. It might well be that after a month or two months in Germany, especially if they could not get any work there, they would be prepared to come back and help us in agriculture, brick-making or road-mending, or whatever it might be.
I realise there might well be transport difficulties at the moment, but would my right hon. Friend be good enough to say that he will look very carefully at this suggestion, which has been made to me personally by several prisoners of; war,

that they would be glad to come back here and work for us if only they could just go home for some weeks first and see their people?

11.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I am sure that both hon. Members who have spoken have done so from motives that are quite unquestionable and I am sorry that I shall be unable to accede to the request that has been made. It is not out of a lack of a sense of humanity, but purely out of consideration of certain matters in this country. I think that the question of foreign labour must be looked at altogether. My hon. Friends will realise that there are in this country now 100,000 Poles to whom we have a prior obligation. Very largely these men were our allies. Many fought in the Battle of Britain—very many of them, in the Air Force, in Italy and in Normandy—and this House has undertaken certain obligations in respect of these men. I must not do anything which would prejudice the opportunity of placing Poles in civil employment in this country. That is the first point.
The second point is this: when we consider our moral obligations, are our moral obligations strongest to the victims of Fascism or to the instruments of Fascism? At the moment we are helping to maintain in Germany and Austria something like a million displaced persons. They are very largely the victims of Fascism, and if we could resettle these people, or many of them, in this country in our undermanned industries, we should be relieving ourselves of the obligations of maintaining them in idleness on the Continent of Europe and be doing a fine humanitarian act which I am sure would appeal to all Members of the House. Secondly, they would be able to make a very substantial contribution to our own economy.

Mr. Driberg: I do not think that either my hon. Friend or I was pleading this case on humanitarian or sentimental grounds, but on a strictly utilitarian basis. I imagine that the Ministry of Labour is primarily a utilitarian Ministry. I would like my right hon. Friend to tell me, therefore, what he proposes to do to fill the gap in agricultural manpower when these prisoners go home? Could he really fill it with Poles?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I was trying to give my hon. Friends the general background to this question. After all, it is a question of using manpower which is at present a drain upon our resources and manpower to which we have certain obligations—very firm obligations given in this House. It is our prior obligation to get into employment, in our undermanned industries, those people who, at the moment, are a drain upon our economy. Then there is a second consideration. In placing Poles and European voluntary workers, one is making a permanent addition to our labour force and not merely a temporary addition. It is in that sense that I look at this problem.
Now I come to the question of prisoners of war. One of the great problems we are up against in this connection is that of accommodation. I do not think the House has been informed that the Ministry of Labour had to stop recruiting male European voluntary workers because of shortage of accommodation in this country. Therefore, we have limited the right to remain in this country on the part of prisoners of war to agricultural employment where accommodation is available on the farms on which they are to be employed. We cannot allow them to stay on under any other conditions, otherwise they would be taking accommodation which should be available either for British workers or members of the Polish Resettlement Corps. Our prior obligations are firstly to the British worker and secondly to the resettlement of the Poles. I am afraid I must stand at that point.
If we were able to solve the problem of accommodation, we would be faced with another problem, that of trade union agreements on the employment of prisoners of war. I have been dealing with this problem for some considerable time. The state of our undermanned industries and the shortages arising from that condition are mainly responsible for the very serious economic situation which we are now facing in this country. I have had the greatest difficulty in getting an open door through which to put Poles and European voluntary workers into the undermanned industries of this country. To throw into that pool of agitation—to add to that source of contention—the further problem of employment of German prisoners of war, is to make the last position much worse than the first. If

our trade unions and employers resist the employment of Poles who have been our allies, will they readily agree to the employment of ex-enemies? [Interruption.] The Government must have regard to certain moral obligations in this matter, and it may well be that before they solve the crisis we are now facing in our economy, the country will have to decide whether or not we have direction of labour or an absolutely open door for the employment of Poles and European voluntary workers.
It is no use putting either prisoners of war or ex-prisoners of war into employment which is merely going to mean we carry other people on our backs. It is of the utmost importance that these 100,000 Poles shall be put into employment as quickly as possible in the interests of the economic well-being of this country. Secondly we want all the accommodation available for the contribution we have to make in solving the resettlement of displaced persons on the Continent of Europe. In making that contribution we are also saving dollars. For instead of maintaining them, we are bringing them here, if accommodation is available, and putting them into our industries.
I could not agree to start a new policy of opening negotiations with trade unions and employers in this country on what I regard as the more tendentious matter of prisoners of war until this question of the open door for the Poles and European voluntary workers has been settled. If it were just a case of looking at the manpower needs of the country, I should not shut my eyes to the needs of ex-prisoners of war who wanted to come into our economy; but I would warn hon. Members that that would be an extremely difficult matter to negotiate. The difficulties in the way would be stupendous, and I would hold out little hope of being able to get agreement on the part of any general body of trade unions on the policy advocated by the hon. Member.
I am aware of the tremendous efforts which the French are making to get manpower. They are coming over here to the Polish Resettlement Corps to try to recruit men for the French economy. Our position is different. We have 100,000 people here—Poles to whom we have obligations. We must put them into employment before putting Germans in on any scale. Secondly, we have that agree-


ment regarding voluntary workers, and we are making our contribution by getting men and women from the Continent to put into our undermanned industries. Therefore, the French position is entirely different.
In my view, we can get a quarter of a million, including the Poles and foreign workers—the majority of whom were our allies—into our undermanned industries. If we can do that, the question of German prisoners of war does not arise. The great obstacle is a lack of accommodation, which is now taken up by German prisoners of war. There is the difficulty of how to meet our manpower difficulties in this country, and to phase repatriation of German prisoners of war with bringing in voluntary European labour. I can assure hon. Members that that, in itself, is a very difficult proposition.
I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War what has been said about the Middle East. I am

sure the time has come when prisoners of war should flow back in greater numbers. That is what I want. The needs of the German economy are such that we ought not to attempt to induce prisoners of war to stay in this country. That is my view. Unless Germany is rehabilitated, the burden will always tend to pull this country back. It is time these men went home and started to rehabilitate their country. The more we induce them to stay here, the more difficult we make it for the Control Commission to rehabilitate devastated areas. I am sorry I cannot be more forthcoming about this whole question. I hope I have said enough to indicate it is a very difficult problem involving the question of the use of foreign labour, and I assure my hon. Friends that it is not out of disregard for the needs of human decency that I have to reject the proposal that has been put forward.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.